Annual Report 2002 2003

The Honourable Wayne Easter, P.C., M.P. Solicitor General of Canada House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Easter, Pursuant to section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, I hereby transmit the annual report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, for tabling in Parliament. Yours very truly,

Shirley Heafey Chair May 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Message From the Chair

Part 1 About the Commision

Mandate
Our Role
Jurisdiction of the Commission
Composition of the Commission
Commission Budget
Commission Structure

Part 2 Operations

Part 3 Policing Issues

Vision

Excellence in policing through accountability.

Mission

To provide civilian oversight of RCMP members' conduct in performing their policing duties so as to hold the RCMP accountable to the public.

Core Values

The following core values guide our work and reflect the work environment for which we strive.

• Independence
• Objectivity
• Fairness
• Timeliness
• Effective communication
• Excellence
• Respect
• Integrity
• Professionalism
• Teamwork

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

Ideally, all public officials should have a vision of the work entrusted to them. Their public life should be dedicated to implementing that vision, little by little, bit by bit, as opportunities and resources allow. In service of that vision, objectives have to be set and doggedly pursued, victories have to be celebrated, and shortcomings have to be acknowledged and addressed. Having celebrated my fifth anniversary as Chair of this Commission, I have experienced much and learned plenty. And I recognize that this growth must continue. Now that I have the benefit of that experience and learning, I will share my vision with Parliament and the public so that the Commission's objectives can be assessed, its victories graded and our needs debated.

A few years ago, we completed a major strategic planning exercise. One of the many accomplishments of that exercise was the adoption-for the first time in the history of the Commission-of a vision statement, a mission statement and a statement of core values. Those statements serve us well, and I continue to be guided by them. I'd like to take this opportunity to share some elements of my personal vision.

I want the work of this Commission to be relevant.

The relevance I speak of has a number of facets. First, the work we do - the complaints we receive, the investigations we conduct, the reports we write - must be of the highest quality. The work is relevant only if what we produce can withstand critical scrutiny of the highest calibre, be understood by complainants and RCMP members alike, and generate meaningful debate about the issues we address.

Second, the work we do must be accomplished on a timely basis. The value of the lessons to be learned from an incident that generates a complaint diminishes over time.We all know that.

Third, the public and the RCMP must respect the work we do. The public must know we understand the anxiety that can accompany an unhappy confrontation with the police and the reluctance to file a complaint. Members of the RCMP must know we appreciate the tremendous challenges they encounter on a daily basis and the value of their role in a democratic society. Both must know we will examine complaints, and the police conduct that prompted them, independently and objectively while always attempting to balance the various values that Canadians embrace.

Fourth, our work must be effective. That means, primarily, that our findings and recommendations should have a positive impact on RCMP conduct, practices and policy. It also means that the public and its representatives accept our views as to what constitutes appropriate police conduct.

I want the work of this Commission to be proactive.We must constantly search out new ways to reconcile differences between the public and the RCMP and to diminish the bitterness that sometimes erupts between police and the public they serve.

I want the Commission to be a leader in identifying trends and problems as they emerge, to analyse them and play an important role in the formulation of RCMP policy. I want the Commission to use its expertise in relations between police and the public in monitoring the evolution of relevant law. As an independent agency vitally concerned with the common good, the Commission should provide its advice on the practical implications of changes in the law as well as offer its perspective on the proper direction of change.

With respect to identifying policing trends and monitoring relevant law, we are in a unique position to make an important contribution to the enormous policy responsibility of the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

A vision of the type I have described is not achieved by the passage of legislation alone. Parliament provided the framework for this civilian oversight agency, but implementing a vision is slow, painstaking work. My predecessors worked long and hard and met many challenges to take the first difficult steps. I have reaped the benefits of their contributions, and I am grateful for their efforts.

In the past five years, the dedicated staff of this Commission have given me many victories to celebrate.

With the progressive introduction of quality controls and with the assistance of an expanded legal team charged with addressing the legal issues in each file, our reports are based on a sophisticated understanding of the law and policy relating to the complaint. At the same time, we have introduced format changes that make our reports shorter and easier to read so they can be better understood by complainants and RCMP members alike. Significant progress has been made towards our goal of producing work of the highest quality.

In my first years as Chair, there was one principal imperative: reduce the accumulated backlog of unresolved cases. Between 1997 and 2001, the Commission issued over 1200 reports. The huge effort that this number represents paid dividends in eliminating many of the "old" cases and setting the stage for the introduction of new management techniques designed to expedite the review process. Our work is timelier today but much remains to be done.

Respect and effectiveness are difficult to gauge but I believe we enjoy a fair measure of both. For example, by working with the Commission to improve the quality of complaint investigations, the RCMP demonstrates respect for the public complaint process.We can also point to numerous policy initiatives undertaken by the RCMP in response to our recommendations to show that our work is having a positive impact on members' conduct.

The alternative dispute resolution initiative that was launched by the Commission in 1999 has expedited some 1392 complaints in less than four years. In appropriate cases, our complaint analysts bring the complainant and the member(s) of the RCMP together to resolve their differences.When these efforts are successful, the complaint is dealt with in a matter of days, to the relief of both parties. No RCMP investigation takes place and the Commission's formal processes are not engaged. This is proactive; this is reconciliation.

An example of proactive reconciliation that I am particularly proud of involved two small communities in New Brunswick. The people in these communities were intimidated by the RCMP response to generally peaceful demonstrations prompted by a provincial decision to close their French-language schools. Relations between the RCMP and these communities were dangerously strained. The Commission launched a public interest investigation into these events. Hundreds of people - complainants, witnesses and RCMP members - spoke candidly to our investigators.

My report ultimately recommended that the RCMP members apologize for their actions and numerous recommendations were made with a view to assisting the RCMP in the policing of public events. To the credit of the RCMP, a very public apology was made and many of our ideas respecting the policing of public events were incorporated into RCMP policy. Although the Commission successfully handled these serious complaints in the context of a public interest investigation, many of the elements found in a successful reconciliation were present. The complainants were interviewed in their homes by Commission investigators and they felt comfortable in expressing their deep-felt concerns. The RCMP's generous response to my report closed the circle and allowed healing to begin.

When I recently visited the region to follow up, it was apparent to me that reconciliation was continuing in those communities and I am confident that cooperative relations are being restored. This public interest investigation was effective.

There are other areas of concern needing attention that I monitor closely, such as police pursuits and deaths of detainees in police cells. I have addressed both of these problems in detailed reports, and suggested ways in which the inherent dangers of high-speed pursuits can be minimized and cell deaths prevented. I have suggested policy and training initiatives that are necessary in both areas.

Across the country, provincial policies have thrust members of the RCMP, and other peace officers, into a "first-contact" position with people in a mental health crisis. The wisdom of these policies has become the subject of much debate but, in the meantime, members of the RCMP are compelled to deal with the consequences of these policies. I have been studying this issue and will shortly be making recommendations designed to assist the RCMP in adjusting to this new social reality. Again, this is a subject that I will monitor closely.

The law that governs police behaviour is constantly evolving: for example, a) the Supreme Court of Canada regularly pronounces on the Charter; b) appeal courts try to explain the limits on the right of police officers to stop people on the street (investigative detention); and c) Parliament invested police with vast new powers to address the threats that became apparent following September 11, 2001. As a civilian oversight agency, we think it imperative that our voice be heard, and carefully considered, in the debates prompted by these and similar changes. In reports, speeches, media contacts and scholarly publications, we have tried to make our views known.The dedicated staff of this Commission have made great strides towards all the goals I have articulated, on a budget that, compared with the budgets of similar federal agencies, can only be described as modest. My managers have taxed their ingenuity to the limit to make impressive gains, but careful spending and internal reallocation of resources can do no more.

Our greatest failing in past years has been our inability to produce reports on a timely basis. In 1997, the Auditor General suggested that a report should be completed within 120 days of the receipt of the request for review. That is not possible given our current resources. In fact, even with all the improvements made to our process, we do not expect our caseload to be current for another three years. That is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to the Commissioner of the RCMP. It should be unacceptable to Parliament and the Canadian public as well.

Parts VI and VII of the RCMP Act became law in 1986 and the Commission began receiving and reviewing complaints in 1988.With the lessons learned from 15 years of experience under the current legislation, the time is ripe to address the shortcomings that prevent us from fully achieving our vision. More importantly, it is time to reassess the civilian oversight scheme in light of the vast new powers recently given to police services across the country. I note that England, Northern Ireland and New Zealand have recently undertaken important reforms of civilian oversight of policing.

Civilian oversight of the RCMP is not possible without access to all information relevant to a complaint. Throughout the Commission's history, access to information held by the RCMP has been a problem that my predecessors have had to address regularly. In this past year, I have had to commence a Federal Court application in an effort to obtain the information necessary to conduct a review. The courts should not be asked to resolve these matters - the legislation should be amended to make it clearer that the Commission is to have unfettered access to all information held by the RCMP.

When the Anti-terrorism Act was being debated, both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of the day pointed to the Commission as playing a large role in ensuring that the new police powers are exercised appropriately. In a speech given in March 2002 (available on our web site), I outlined my reasons for concluding that we do not have the tools to provide effective oversight in this changed environment. In short, a complaint-driven process cannot evaluate the exercise of these new powers if the targets fear the attention that a complaint would inevitably generate. Time and again, I have heard reports of alleged abuse of the new powers, but without a complaint, I cannot begin to determine if the allegation is true. By the same token, I am unable to say that the RCMP is using the new powers exactly as Parliament intended. I should have sufficient powers at my disposal to decide if this is indeed the case and so advise Parliament and the public.

At a minimum, to do the job entrusted to it, the Commission needs access to all information held by the RCMP relevant to its files, and it needs the power to conduct random audits to ensure the appropriate exercise of authority in the absence of a specific complaint. In a country dedicated to the rule of law, the use of the extraordinary powers we confer on the police for our protection must be effectively monitored by an independent, civilian authority. That proposition is unlikely to generate any serious disagreement. However, Parliament must be vigilant to ensure that this Commission does not disappoint the expectations of the people of Canada.We must be given the resources and tools necessary to fulfil our vision and to discharge the critical role we play in upholding the rule of law.

Shirley Heafey
Chair

Top of Page

About the Commission

Mandate

The mandate of the Commission is set out in Part VII of the RCMP Act and can be summarized as follows:

• receive complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members:

• conduct reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of their complaints;

• hold hearings and investigations; and

• report findings and make recommendations.

Top of Page

Our Role

The Commission is an independent body. It is not part of the RCMP. Parliament established the Commission to receive and review allegations of inappropriate conduct by RCMP members and to reinforce good police conduct.

In carrying out its duties, the Commission treats the public and RCMP members with fairness and objectivity. The Commission does not act as an advocate for either the complainant or the RCMP member(s). Nor is the Commission a disciplinary body of the RCMP. It does not have jurisdiction to review matters related to the administration or management of the RCMP. Employment disputes and contractual disputes between individuals and the RCMP fall into this category.

The Commission makes findings and recommendations aimed at correcting and preventing recurring policing problems. These findings and recommendations may address the conduct of specific RCMP members or may deal with broader issues involving RCMP policies and practices. The Commission's effectiveness therefore depends on its ability to formulate persuasive recommendations that the RCMP Commissioner will accept and implement.

Top of Page

Jurisdiction of The Commission

Generally, the Commission has jurisdiction over a complaint from a member of the public that concerns the conduct of an RCMP member while performing a policing duty or function. These duties and functions include criminal investigations, public complaint investigations, policing public events, security assignments and intelligence operations.

A complaint must also involve:

• an RCMP member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act;

• an RCMP member or other person who, when the complaint is made, is not deceased, retired, nor has resigned or been dismissed from the Force; and

• conduct that occurred after September 30, 1988, the date the Commission became authorized to take complaints.

The Commission's jurisdiction may extend to complaints about the personal conduct of members. The Commission was established to assess the conduct of members in the performance of their duties. Section 37 of the RCMP Act enumerates some of these duties, which clearly apply to the personal conduct of members, whether on duty or off duty. Paragraph 37(g), for example, imposes the duty on members to "act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner."

In practice, when the personal conduct of an RCMP member is at issue, the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint only if it is determined that the alleged conduct is likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member and/or the RCMP's reputation. In such cases, the Commission will attempt to minimize the personal information disclosed in its reports, recognizing the need for a balance between civilian oversight and a member's right to privacy.

The following examples illustrate the limits of the Commission's jurisdiction with respect to the personal conduct of RCMP members:

• A complainant alleged that her neighbour, an RCMP member, threatened her, saying in French: "I want you to know this, not today and not here, I want you to know that I will settle this" when she refused to consent to his municipal application for a particular use of his property. The Commission determined that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction. The alleged conduct-uttering what was perceived as a threat to a neighbour in the course of a personal dispute between neighbours-was not likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member or harm the reputation of the RCMP. There was no suggestion that the RCMP member did anything to rely on his status as a member or to imply that he would use his powers as a member to "settle" the matter. The RCMP member was acting in his capacity as a private citizen, which he should be allowed to do without scrutiny by the Commission.

• A complainant who was involved in a custody dispute with her ex-husband, an RCMP member, alleged, among other things, that her ex-husband, while off duty, asked an on-duty RCMP member to pick up their child at a third party's house. In this case, the Commission determined that the alleged conduct was likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member or harm the reputation of the RCMP. The decision was based on the allegation that the member relied on his status as a member and accessed RCMP resources for personal reasons. The complaint therefore fell within the public complaint process and was subject to scrutiny by the Commission.

With respect to the last example, the Commission reviewed the complaint and concluded in an interim report that the RCMP member acted improperly when he asked the on-duty member to pick up his child at the third party's house.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed and stated that the member had improperly relied on his status as a member and accessed RCMP resources to further his personal interests. The RCMP Commissioner acknowledged that some personal conduct should be subject to scrutiny in accordance with Part VII of the RCMP Act.

The Commission seeks to resolve questions about its jurisdiction to deal with a public complaint as early as possible in the complaint process.Where a complaint falls outside the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission so notifies the complainant. Because complaints are also made directly to the RCMP, the Commission makes continuous efforts to communicate to the RCMP the limits of its jurisdiction. This results in the Commission reducing the number of complaints that would have otherwise been unnecessarily investigated by the RCMP.

Top of Page

Composition of The Commission

COMMISSION MEMBERS

The legislation establishing the Commission provides for a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a maximum of 29 other members and alternates from all provinces and territories that contract with the RCMP to provide policing services. The Chair serves full time; other members may serve full time or part time. The Governor in Council appoints the Chair and Vice-Chair for a term of up to five years. The members of the Commission representing each province and territory are also appointed by the Governor in Council following consultation with theminister responsible for policing in that province or territory.

COMMISSION STAFF

The Commission's Western Region office in Surrey, British Columbia, is the first point of contact for the public and is responsible for receiving all enquiries and complaints in either official language. Commission staff responsible for the hearing, investigation and reviewfunctions work primarily at Commission headquarters in Ottawa.

This year we acquired additional expertise in the areas of law, communications, audit, performance measurement and governance. Among other things, the Commission created the position of Manager of Investigations to conduct, coordinate and monitor investigations under the public complaint process. The Manager of Investigations also provides advice andsupport to management and reviewer analysts when investigations are being contemplated.

Top of Page

Commission Budget

Commission Structure

click for larger version

Ms. Heafey was first appointed Commission Chair on October 16, 1997, after serving as a member-at-large of the Commission since 1995. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Heafey was a barrister and solicitor in private practice in Ottawa and specialized in administrative and human rights law. She has acted as counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the City of Ottawa. In October 2000, she was reappointed Commission Chair for a five-year term.

Mr. Wright was first appointed Vice-Chair of the Commission on August 26, 1998. He was a military police officer with the rank of major in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been involved in several community justice programs, and is a labour arbitrator and a mediator. Mr. Wright was the Chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board for seven years. He has been a part-time member of the Commission since its establishment in 1988.

Part 2 Operations