RCMP Public Complaints Commission

Performance Report

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay, P.C., M.P.
Solicitor General of Canada

Chart of Key Commitments

List of Tables and Figures

Executive Summary

SECTION I Message

SECTION II RCMP Public Complaints Commission Overview

Mandate, Mission and Values

Operating Environment 

Objectives

Strategic Priorities

Challenges

Commission Organization

Business Line

SECTION III RCMP Public Complaints Commission Performance

A. Performance Expectations

B. Performance Accomplishments

1. Commission's recommendations

2. Hearings and Investigations

3. Reviews of complaints: Reducing the Backlog

4. Receipt of complaints

5. Public Awareness

6. Restructuring

SECTION IV Consolidated Reporting

Year 2000 readiness

SECTION V Financial Performance

Financial Performance Overview

SECTION VI Other Information

A. Contacts for Further Information and Web Site

B. Legislation Administered by the Commission

C. Listing of Statutory and Commission Reports

D. Complaint and Review Process

Index

Chart 1: Results of Chair's Recommendations Over 5 Years

Chart 2: Number of reports completed in 1998-1999

Chart 3: Number of requests for review

Chart 4: Number of complaints received by the Commission

Financial Table 1: Summary of Voted Appropriations

Financial Table 2: Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending

Financial Table 3: Historical Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending

The key challenge facing the RCMP Public Complaints Commission continues to be the elimination of the backlog of review cases. During 1998-1999, the Commission undertook a thorough assessment of the review process with a view to introducing new policies and procedures that allow for both more efficient processing of review reports and improved quality.

The primary accomplishment of the Commission in the past fiscal year has been the reduction of the review case backlog. In 1998-1999, the Commission processed more review cases than it had in any other single year in its 10-year history. These results are outlined on page 14 of this report.

The Commission has also undertaken steps towards implementing alternate dispute resolution techniques as a means of resolving complaints in a less formal and more efficient manner, while at the same time conducting two public interest investigations and one high-profile public interest hearing.

Finally, public awareness of the Commission's existence and mandate has been increased due to the aforementioned public interest investigations and hearing, as well as the development of an Internet web site.

The past fiscal year, 1998-1999, has been a turning point for the Commission.

The Commission received an unprecedented amount of public and media attention and was busier than ever before in conducting its hearings, investigations and reviews. While pursuing a much-needed reorganization of its structure and operations, the Commission's primary accomplishment has been the completion of a record number of review reports. In addition, the Commission undertook the most extensive public interest hearing, as well as the largest public interest investigation, in its 10-year history.

We, at the Commission, are committed to seeking the least formal and most efficient options to resolve complaints, without compromising the values of impartiality, fairness and transparency. In this connection, steps were taken to begin incorporating alternative dispute resolution techniques in the complaints intake process.

As Chair, I am also pleased to report that the Commission has launched a web site to more effectively reach out to the Canadian public through the Internet. It is hoped that by reaching tens of thousands of Canadians in this new way, we will better inform them of our existence and of our mandate.

My main priorities are to continue with the restructuring of the Commission so as to more efficiently process complaints and reviews; and to complete the APEC public hearing and the two public interest investigations in the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

Shirley Heafey
Chair

Section II: RCMP Public Complaints Commission Overview

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission has jurisdiction to accept complaints only with respect to RCMP members and not about members of other police forces. The Commission does not have the authority to make binding recommendations, impose discipline or to make monetary awards to complainants.

The Commission is an independent, arm's length government agency. The key stakeholder is the Canadian public. Specific clients include the complainants and the RCMP.

As an independent tribunal, the Commission is, and must be seen to be, impartial and fair in its dealings with both the complainants and the RCMP members complained about. When reviewing the RCMP's disposition of a complaint, the Commission does not act as an advocate for either the complainant or the RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and impartially in order to arrive at objective conclusions based on the information provided by the complainants and the RCMP.

The Commission reports to Parliament through the Solicitor General of Canada; however, the Solicitor General has no involvement in the internal operations of the Commission.

Expectations of the Commission are high. The greatest pressure facing the Commission is the elimination of the backlog of cases. Both complainants and members of the RCMP have expressed their view to the Commission that the processing time for reviews should be shorter.

The APEC hearing in Vancouver and the public interest investigation in New Brunswick have elevated the Commission's public profile, with the result that the Commission is receiving an unprecedented number of enquiries and requests for information.

The Commission's objectives are:

• To ensure that the reviews of complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion;

• To implement alternate dispute resolution techniques early in the complaints process;

• To streamline Commission hearings;

• To carry out a communications strategy to better inform the public about the existence and mandate of the Commission.

• To eliminate the backlog of requests for review;

• To accelerate the review process by increasing the flexibility of Commission procedures;

• To incorporate alternative dispute resolution techniques for settling complaints;

• To improve the overall efficiency of Commission hearings; and

• To increase public awareness of the responsibilities and activities of the Commission.

Challenges

In order to meet its strategic priorities, the Commission faces numerous challenges. The Commission has been and continues to be challenged to:

• reduce the outstanding backlog of requests for review;

• reduce the time to conduct a review through more flexible processes.

• hold more expeditious public hearings.

• ensure that the public is aware of its right to make complaints about the conduct of RCMP members and to have the RCMP disposition of those complaints reviewed by the Commission.

Commission Organization

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial body.

The Commission consists of a full-time Chair, a Vice-Chair, members for each contracting province and territory, and not more than three other members. All are appointed by Order of the Governor in Council for three to five years. The Chair is a full-time member. The other members may be appointed as full-time or part-time members. An alternate member can be appointed to act for any member of the Commission other than the position of Chair. The main function of members is to conduct hearings to which they have been assigned by the Chair.

Each province and territory that contracts with the RCMP for policing services is represented on the Commission by a member for that jurisdiction. The provincial or territorial minister or other elected representative responsible for policing in each contracting jurisdiction must be consulted before the appointment of such a Commission member.

The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Commission and may delegate her statutory powers, duties and functions to the Vice-Chair, except the Chair's delegating powers and the Chair'sresponsibility for the Annual Report. The Chair of the Commission reports to Parliament by means of an annual report that is tabled in both Houses of Parliament by the Solicitor General of Canada.

The Commission's organizational structure, in chart form, is on page 8. The Western Region Office is located in Surrey, British Columbia and is responsible for receiving complaints from Yukon, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Prairie provinces. The Western Region Office is staffed by the Regional Director, investigators and support personnel. The Head Office of the Commission, located in Ottawa, receives complaints from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. As well, all reviews carried out by the Commission are conducted at the Head Office.

Business Line

The Commission has one business line. That business line is the receipt of complaints and the review of the RCMP disposition of complaints.

RCMP Public Complaints Commission

* This chart depicts the organization as it existed on March 31, 1999.

The main purpose of Parts VI and VII of the RCMP Act is to provide members of the public with an opportunity to make complaints regarding the conduct of RCMP members in the performance of their duties, to protect RCMP members from frivolous or vexatious public complaints and, to have the RCMP disposition of those complaints reviewed by an independent and external body.

In this context, the Commission's service standards are to provide a service that is:

• fair, impartial and responsible;

• reliable, timely and accessible;

• open and clear;

• responsive and committed to improvement;

• a good use of the taxpayer's dollar, and

• in partnership with all Canadians.

All changes to the structure and procedures of the Commission that were undertaken during the 1998-1999 fiscal year will continue into 1999-2000. These changes relate to the goal of the Commission to meet its service standards. The Commission will meet these service standards by:

• reducing the backlog and the time to complete reviews,

• developing alternate dispute resolution methods to settle matters before they become formal complaints; and,

• streamlining the hearing process.

The Commission Chair, who was appointed in October 1997, accepted the challenge of renewing the Commission.

B.  Performance Accomplishments

As set out in the Key Results Commitments Charts on page 1, the overriding commitment for the Commission is to contribute to a safe and secure society in Canada through the independent and impartial review of the RCMP's disposition of public complaints. It accomplishes this in a variety of ways, as outlined below:

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission contributes to the enhancement of public confidence in the policing activities of the RCMP by conducting, at the request of complainants, an independent review of the RCMP's disposition of complaints and, by making recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP.

By publishing information about its recommendations, the Commission can demonstrate how it contributes to an improved RCMP. If the Commissioner of the RCMP accepts the majority of the Commission's recommendations, it means that the Commissioner regards them as helpful. This is demonstrated by the number of changes that are made to RCMP practices, policies and procedures as a result of these recommendations.

The Commission, in an ombudsman-like fashion, makes recommendations for the betterment of RCMP policies and practices. The recommendations fall into two categories: preventative and curative.

Preventative recommendations are meant to provide information to the Commissioner on how to prevent the recurrence of particular situations, for example:

• supervisory guidance: the RCMP member should undertake a review of the RCMP policies, procedures and resources under the guidance of a supervisor;

• review policies: the supervisor should review existing policies and/or laws with the member(s) involved and/or with the entire detachment;

• review procedures: the supervisor should review existing procedures with specific members and/or with the detachment as a whole;

• review resources: the supervisor should review the availability of resources with the member(s) complained about. This can include such measures as contacting professionals in other disciplines and the use of the Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS) database;

• further training: the members(s) complained about should complete further training; and

• implement/review/change policy: either existing policies be reviewed and/or changed or that a new policy be implemented.

Curative recommendations are meant to provide the Commissioner with information that may facilitate the resolution of the complaint. These recommendations might include:

• apology: that the RCMP and/or the member(s) involved apologize to the complainant;

• further investigation: that further investigation into the complaint be conducted;

• provision of further information: that complainants be provided with more detailed information regarding their complaint.

Chart 1 provides information on the overall number of recommendations per year and the number of recommendations with which the RCMP Commissioner agreed or disagreed. The chart demonstrates that in over 80% of the cases, the Commissioner agrees with the Commission's recommendations. This means that in the majority of cases, the Commission is able to assist the RCMP in improving its service to the Canadian public.

The following examples demonstrate the impact of the Commission on RCMP practices. These cases, reviewed in 1998-99, exemplify the overall success of the Commission in terms of its mission to contribute to the public confidence in the RCMP as the best possible police force.

Chair's recommendation: When the Commission found that an RCMP officer's use of the carotid control hold in controlling a prisoner contravened the national policy and constituted an excessive use of force, it was recommended that the practices of the subject member be reviewed.

Result: The Commissioner of the RCMP promised that appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the use of force on uncooperative prisoners would comply with the law and policy.

Chair's recommendation: Where it was found that RCMP officers did not have lawful authority to enter a private residence, the Chair recommended that an apology be given to the family and that the actions of the subject officers be reviewed with them.

Result: The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the finding, issued an apology to the family and had the law on police access to private residences reviewed with the subject officers to prevent a similar recurrence.

Chair's recommendation: After finding that an RCMP officer placed himself in a conflict of interest situation and misused his authority as a police officer during a neighbourhood dispute involving a member of his family, the Chair recommended that an apology be given and that the officer be counselled on his actions.

Result: The RCMP Commissioner agreed that an apology be extended and that the officer be counselled on the exercise of his authority as a peace officer in situations involving family members.

APEC Hearing:

After the demonstrations at the University of British Columbia during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Conference in November 1997, the Commission received a large number of complaints about the conduct of certain RCMP officers who were involved in those events. As a consequence, the Chair established a public interest investigation on December 9, 1997. Subsequently, on February 20, 1998, the Chair instituted a public interest hearing to look into the matter. This hearing is looking into:

• the events that took place during, or in connection with, demonstrations during the APEC conference;

• whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was appropriate in the circumstances; and

• whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was consistent with respect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The APEC hearing is the most extensive hearing in the Commission's history. Once concluded, the member of the Commission conducting the hearing, Mr. Ted Hughes, will forward his report to the Solicitor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the parties to the hearing. The Commissioner of the RCMP then must review the report, take any necessary action, and notify the Solicitor General and the Chair of the Commission of any action he has taken or outline his reasons for not acting on any specific finding or recommendation. After reviewing the response of the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Chair of the Commission will prepare a Final Report containing her findings and recommendations and send copies to the Solicitor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the parties to the complaint.

On March 20, 1998, the Chair of the Commission instituted a Public Interest Investigation into events that took place on May 2-4, 1997 in Saint Sauveur and Saint Simon, New Brunswick.

In total, 172 complaints from citizens are under investigation. The complaints have to do with the conduct of RCMP members who responded to demonstrations held in reaction to government announcements of school closures. The allegations include excessive use of force, oppressive conduct, violation of peaceful protest, unjustified arrest and neglect of duty. Specifically, some complainants have alleged that the use of police dogs and tear gas was unnecessary.

Over 200 members of the public and over 65 RCMP members have been interviewed by the Commission's investigators. The Chair expects to issue her interim report on the investigation by the end of 1999.

On September 23, 1998, the Chair of the Commission initiated an investigation in the public interest into the conduct of RCMP members involved in the detention of Mr. Kim Erik Nielsen of Kamloops, British Columbia.

On May 21, 1997, a counsellor at a 'street' mission telephoned police to report that a highly intoxicated male had been dropped off at the mission by persons unknown. Mr. Nielsen was taken into custody in accordance with s. 41 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act of British Columbia. Several hours later, Mr. Nielsen was found unconscious and not breathing in his cell. His vital signs were restored and he was transported to a local hospital where he later died, despite the resuscitation efforts undertaken by officers at the detachment.

The investigation into this matter is nearing completion. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Chair will prepare, and deliver to the Solicitor General and Commissioner of the RCMP, a written report setting out her findings and recommendations in relation to this incident.

The final reports of the panels involved in the Brake/Peter-Paul and Farness public hearings were released by the Commission in 1998-1999. These hearings had been held in 1996-1997.

In 1998-1999, the Commission completed 347 reviews. This is a Commission record, amounting to three times the number of reviews completed in 1997-1998. Moreover, in 1998-1999, the Commission received 260 new requests for review. By completing 347 review cases in the same time period, the Commission marked a significant turning point in that, for the first time since 1994-1995, the Commission resolved more review cases than it received. This significant improvement in the processing of reviews was the result of two major changes: the introduction of simplified internal review processes; and, the appointment of a Vice-Chair with authority to approve reviews.

Chart 2 shows the number of review reports completed in 1998-1999, including:

• the total number of reports;

• satisfied reports, i.e. reports where the Chair is satisfied with the RCMP disposition of public complaints;

• interim reports, i.e. reports containing the Chair's findings and recommendations, where the Chair is not satisfied with the RCMP disposition of public complaints; and

• final reports containing recommendations, i.e. reports prepared after receipt of the RCMP Commissioner's response to the interim report.

Chart 2: Number of Review Reports Completed in 1998-1999

Timeliness is of great importance in conducting reviews and issuing reports. The Commission remains committed to eliminating the backlog of review cases that has accumulated in recent years. The restructuring and streamlining of the Commission made possible the significant increase in the number of reviews conducted in 1998-1999. The top priority of the Commission will be to continue reducing that backlog with a view to eliminating it by the end of fiscal year 2000-2001.

Chart 3: Number of requests for review

Of the 260 requests for review received in 1998-99, 42 received in that year were completed. The remainder of reports signed were received in previous years.

One of the Commission's activities set out in Part VII of the RCMP Act is the receipt of complaints and their transmittal to the RCMP for investigation. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission has no control over the number of public complaints it receives, and complainants also have the option of making a complaint directly to the RCMP or to the provincial authority responsible for policing.

In keeping with the service standard of reliable, timely and accessible service, the receipt and transfer of the public complaints to the RCMP for investigation are carried out as quickly as possible. However, to date no action has been officially taken by the Commission to attempt settlement between the parties before the matter becomes a formal complaint. It is anticipated that, with the introduction of alternate dispute resolution techniques into the complaint receipt process, the number of formal complaints will be lower in the future.

The Commission has been criticized in the past for not better communicating the fact of its existence and the substance of its mandate to Canadians. Through the high profile public hearing into the events that took place at the 1997 APEC conference, and the broad public interest investigation taking place in New Brunswick, many more Canadians are now aware of the Commission and its role. However, a comprehensive communications strategy is still required and will be implemented in the future. In the meantime, the Commission has launched a web site to more effectively reach out to the Canadian public through the Internet. We hope to reach tens of thousands of Canadians in this new way, to better inform them of our existence and of our mandate.

Our web site address is given in the section entitled "Other Information" at page 21 of this report.

In order to carry out the strategic priorities of the Chair, enumerated on page 6, the Commission launched a major reorganization. The majority of the restructuring is complete. For example, two regional offices were centralized into one. The Commission's operations area was split into two units: the Enquiries and Complaints Unit and the Review Unit. The Enquiries and Complaints Unit, with a small staff at headquarters and encompassing the Western Regional Office, is focusing on developing the capacity to facilitate informal resolution or mediated resolution of a larger proportion of incoming complaints.

The Review Unit is located entirely at headquarters. Its objectives are to provide much improved service to the public by achieving a shorter response to new review requests and to eliminate the backlog of review cases. It will report on the progress made in the 1999-2000 performance report.

A new function, Registrar and Director of Special Projects, was also created. The objective of this function is to provide sharper focus to hearings and to major investigations.

The Commission completed a Y2K Business Continuity Plan, as required by federal government policy.

The Commission's information technology systems are provided by the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada on a cost-shared basis. The Department does not have any government-wide mission critical systems (GWMCS). It has a modern LAN-based infrastructure based on commercial or government shared systems that are already Year 2000 compliant. Its corporate systems, such as those for finance, human resources and information management are being upgraded or replaced with identified Year 2000 compliant government shared systems.

During the 1998-1999 fiscal year, as a result of regular severance and vacation credits due on separation, an amount of $9,253 was received from the Vote 5 Contingency Fund. In addition, the Commission, through Supplementary Estimates, received a carry-forward amount of $71,315.

The following tables are applicable to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission

1. Summary of Voted Appropriations

2. Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending

3. Historial Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending

Total Authorities are Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates of $1,810,050 and Vote 5 Contingency Fund of $9,253 for a total of $1,819,303.

Total Authorities are Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates of $1,810,050 and Vote 5 Contingency Fund of $9,253 for a total of $1,819,303.

P.O. Box 3423
Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4

Telephone: (613) 952-8040
Toll Free: 1-800-267-6637
Fax: (613) 952-8045

www.pcc-cpp.gc.ca 

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission shares responsibility with the RCMP for carrying out the provisions of:

Part VII, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act         R.S., c. R-10, Part VII

In addition, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission reports to Parliament on:

Parts VI and VII, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act         R.S., c. R-10, Part VI, Part VII

C. List of Statutory and Commission Reports

Annual Reports
1988-1989 to 1998-1999

RCMP Act (Commission consolidation)
March 1990

Federal and Provincial Police Oversight Legislation:
A Comparison of Statutory Provisions
June 1991

D.  Complaint and Review Process

Complaints arise as follows:

• complaints from members of the public, directly to the RCMP;

• complaints from members of the public, to the Commission or to provincial policing authorities; and

• complaints initiated by the Chair of the Commission.

Each complaint is dealt with as follows:

• first, the RCMP conducts an investigation;

• then, the Commissioner of the RCMP reports the results of the investigation to the complainant.

If the complainant is not satisfied with the RCMP report, and has asked for a review by the Commission:

• the Commission Chair may ask the RCMP to investigate further, if the investigation seems to be inadequate;

• the Commission Chair may initiate her own investigation; or

• the Commission Chair may hold a public hearing.

If the Chair of the Commission is satisfied with RCMP's disposition of a complaint, the Chair reports this finding in writing to the complainant, the RCMP members involved, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General.

If the Chair of the Commission is not satisfied, she sends an interim report to the Commissioner of the RCMP and to the Solicitor General. This report is treated as follows:

• the Commissioner of the RCMP informs the Chair and the Solicitor General in writing of any action to be taken in response to the Chair's findings and recommendations, including the rationale for decisions not to take any action; and following this

• the Chair prepares a final report that includes the text of the Commissioner's response, as well as the Chair's final recommendations, and sends it to the complainant, the RCMP members involved, the Commissioner of the RCMP and to the Solicitor General.