1999 - 2000   ANNUAL  REPORT

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

Dear Mr. MacAulay,

Pursuant to section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, I hereby transmit the annual report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission for the fiscal year 1999-2000, for tabling in Parliament.

Yours very truly,

Shirley Heafey

Chair
June 2000

Contents

Message from the Chair

Part One: About the RCMP Public Complaints Commission

• The Role of the Commission
• The Complaint and Review Process
• Investigations
• Public Hearings and Public Interest Hearings
• Composition of the Commission
  • Commission Members
  • Commission Staff
• Budget

Part Two: The Year in Review - Update on Activities

• Transitions in the Management Team
  
• Enquiries and Complaints
  
  • Enquiries
    
  • Complaints
    
  • The Jurisdiction of the Commission
    
• Reviews
• Investigations
  
  • Interim Report on New Brunswick Investigation
    
  • Interim Report on Nielsen Investigation
    
• Hearings
  
  • APEC Hearing
    
• Recommendations of the Chair
  
• Professional Activities
  
• Special Projects
  
  • Publication of Police Pursuits and Public Safety
  • Review and Strategic Planning Exercise

Part Three: Looking to the Future

Appendices

• Appendix A: Commission Chair, Vice-Chair and Organization Chart
  
• Appendix B: Commission Budget
  
• Appendix C: Summary of Review Cases of Interest

Getting in Touch with the Commission

Top of Page

Message from the Chair

I dedicate this annual report to the remarkable employees of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, who have accomplished so much during the year, and who have brought so much intelligence and energy to the special kind of public service that constitutes our work. The achievements of this organization are their achievements. Their dedication to our fundamental values of independence, fairness, openness, public accountability and excellence has been an inspiration to me personally.

This Commission has a human face - and it is theirs. The staff and members of the Commission are here to serve Canadians - whether they are explaining how to make a complaint and what alternative measures may be available; whether they are assessing a case that has come to us for review or conducting a public interest investigation; whether they are engaged in dialogue with RCMP members on operational policy issues, or responding to calls and requests for information, or performing research, or providing support functions within the organization. Our clientele live in all parts of this country. Frequently, they are people who do not feel connected to federal government institutions. We listen to what they have to say and we respond. This is a small agency with a limited mandate but an important responsibility; and it is thanks to the people who serve the public as staff of this Commission that we have made so much significant progress during the past year.

As I indicated in the first year of my tenure as Chair, eliminating the backlog of review cases is my first priority. The Commission is continuing to refine its approach in carrying out reviews so that these cases are processed in the most timely and fair manner possible. Once again this year, staff of the Commission have successfully reduced the backlog of review cases. Based on their achievements in the past two years, I am confident that our goal of eliminating the review backlog completely by fiscal year-end 2000-2001 will be achieved.

Both the evidentiary phase of the APEC Hearing and the Saint-Simon and Saint-Sauveur Public Interest Investigation effectively drew to a close in March 2000. These two undertakings have been the most extensive in the Commission's history, and both these major initiatives have been marked by controversy. Neither has been easy. However, I am confident that each of these inquiries will ultimately make a compelling contribution to the subject of police conduct in the handling of public demonstrations.

Top of Page

PART 1 - About the RCMP Public Complaints Commission

The Role of the Commission

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent body. It is not part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It receives complaints from the public about the conduct of members of the RCMP and, in accordance with the RCMP Act, must initially refer these to the RCMP for investigation and disposition. If the person who made the complaint - the complainant - is not satisfied with how the RCMP has dealt with the complaint, they can ask for an independent review by the Commission. The Commission may also conduct investigations and public hearings.

The Commission is not a decision-making body; it makes findings from which flow recommendations to the RCMP Commissioner after public complaints have been investigated and reviewed. Copies of the Commission's recommendations are forwarded to the Solicitor General, who is the Minister responsible for the RCMP. Such recommendations may deal with specific matters of conduct or address broad issues relating to RCMP policy and practice.

Since the establishment of the Commission, there has been an average of 2,625 complaints made by the public about the RCMP each year. Initially, the RCMP received the largest number of complaints directly but, in recent years, that trend has been reversed to the point where, for the past two years, the Commission has received more than half of the public complaints. The vast majority of complaints are resolved by the RCMP without a request from the complainant for further involvement by the Commission. The Commission is asked by complainants to review approximately 10 percent of these cases each year. A large number of Commission reviews indicate satisfaction with the RCMP's disposition of the complaints. In about one quarterof these review cases, the Commission disagrees with the RCMP findings and makes recommendations for further action. These recommendations include a range of corrective actions applied to individual situations, as well as broader policy and procedural changes with application across the RCMP.

Parliament established this Commission to address allegations of inappropriate conduct and to reinforce good police conduct by members of the RCMP. The Commission carries out its functions objectively. When reviewing a complaint, the Commission does not act as an advocate either for the complainant or for RCMP members. Rather, its role is to conduct an independent inquiry and reach objective conclusions based on the available information.

Top of Page

The Complaint and Review Process

Complaints may originate from any of the following sources:

• a member of the public may complain directly to the RCMP;
• a member of the public may complain to the Commission or to provincial policing authorities; and
• the Chair of the Commission may initiate a complaint.

Each complaint is dealt with as follows:

• first, the RCMP conducts an investigation unless the Chair deems it advisable in the public interest to investigate the complaint (see below);
• then, the RCMP reports the results of the investigation to the complainant and the police officer(s) involved.

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;
• initiate her own further investigation; or
• hold a public hearing.

If the Chair of the Commission is satisfied with the 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 further action; and, following this,
• the Chair prepares a final report that includes the text of the Commissioner's response, known as the Commissioner's Notice, as well as the Chair's final recommendations, and sends it to the complainant, the RCMP member(s) involved, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General.

Top of Page

Investigations

As noted above, in the course of a review of the RCMP disposition of a complaint, the Chair of the Commission may institute an investigation to inquire further into the complaint. The Chair can ask the RCMP to carry out a more complete investigation, or she can have the Commission itself carry out the investigation. Finally, the Chair of the Commission can also carry out an investigation in the public interest when she considers it advisable, regardless of whether the RCMP has investigated or disposed of the complaint. When the evidentiary stage of an investigation is complete, the Chair prepares and delivers to the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General a written report setting out her findings and recommendations in relation to the complaint. Again, the Commissioner of the RCMP is required to respond and the Chair prepares a final report that is distributed to all parties and the Solicitor General.

Public Hearings and Public Interest Hearings

The Chair of the Commission may institute a public hearing to inquire into a specific complaint at any time she considers further inquiry warranted, but usually does so after weighing the information gathered during an RCMP or Commission investigation. The Commission Chair can also exercise her discretion to call a public interest hearing, when she deems it advisable in the public interest to inquire into a complaint about conduct whether or not there was a prior investigation by the RCMP. A hearing panel has traditionally been composed of three members of the Commission, one of whom must be from the province or territory where the conduct occurred. Single-member panels also have been established in some cases.

Each panel seeks to establish the facts of a complaint by questioning all those directly involved in the complaint and including witnesses and experts who may help the panel better understand the information being presented. A hearing report by the Commission panel sets out its findings and may make recommendations to improve RCMP operations or to correct inadequacies that have led to the complaint. The panel's findings and recommendations are sent to the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Solicitor General, the complainant, the RCMP member(s) complained about and members of the public who ask to be informed.

The RCMP Commissioner is required to respond to the report in a Commissioner's Notice, indicating whether the RCMP will act on the report's findings and recommendations. If the Commissioner decides not to act on the recommendations set out in the report, the Commissioner must include the reasons for not doing so. After considering the Commissioner's Notice, the Chair of the Commission issues a final report, which is distributed in the same manner as the panel report.

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 27 other members or alternates. The Chair serves full time; other members may serve full time or part time. The Commission has a member from each province or territory that contracts with the RCMP to provide policing services (i.e., all provinces and territories except Ontario and Quebec). The federal government appoints the Chair and Vice-Chair for a fixed term of up to five years. The members of the Commission representing each province and territory are appointed by the federal government in consultation with the minister responsible for police affairs in that province or territory.

Commission Staff

In addition to its members, which serve on panels in public hearings, the Commission has a staff that is responsible for providing administrative support to the hearing process and for managing the complaint, review and investigation processes. It is the joint efforts of Commission members and staff that ensure the Commission functions effectively for the public and the RCMP.

Commission staff responsible for the hearing, investigation and review functions work primarily out of a head office in Ottawa. The Western Region office in Surrey, British Columbia, is responsible for enquiries and complaints.

Appendix A provides an organization chart setting out the reporting relationships of the Commission.

Budget

Details of the Commission's budget for 1999-2000 can be found in Appendix B.

Top of Page

Part Two: The Year in Review - Update on Activities

• Transitions in the Management Team
• Enquiries and Complaints
• Enquiries
• Complaints
• The Jurisdiction of the Commission
• Reviews
• Contents

PART TWO

The Year in Review - Update on Activities

Transitions in the Management Team

This year saw significant activity in the management team of the Commission. In May 1999 a new General Counsel was appointed. The Director General, Reviews and Policy, successfully competed and was appointed Executive Director of the Commission. In July 1999, a new Director, Enquiries and Complaints joined the Commission, to undertake, among other things, new alternative dispute resolution initiatives in resolving complaints; the Commission undertook staffing to fill the vacated Director General, Reviews and Policy position.

Despite these significant staffing changes in key positions, the Commission enjoyed another productive and successful year, as reported below. These accomplishments are directly attributable to the extraordinary efforts and dedication of all Commission staff who continue to function as a strong and dedicated team.

Top of Page

Enquiries and Complaints Enquiries

Enquiries

The Commission receives numerous requests daily for information from members of the public. Besides enquiries about the public complaint process and RCMP handling of complaints, some enquiries involve requests for help in dealing with problems related to other federal or provincial institutions. Although such requests are not strictly within the mandate of the Commission, as an institution of the federal public service the Commission makes every effort to assist the public, most often by directing the caller to the appropriate agency.

Complaints

In addition to general enquiries, many callers contact the Commission to make a complaint about the conduct of a member of the RCMP. The Commission will accept and process every complaint within its jurisdiction but, like other bodies, the Commission is increasingly using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches to resolve complaints. A broad spectrum of ADR techniques is available. They range from informal resolution to more formal mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation.

In keeping with its commitment to develop ADR models, this year the Commission instituted a process for dealing with public complaints in a more informal and less adversarial manner. The Commission's ADR pilot project is called "service to the public" and has the Commission taking on the role of a non-partisan facilitator to resolve complaints. The Commission's role as facilitator is undertaken, when appropriate, as soon as the complaint is received, giving citizens and the RCMP the opportunity to resolve concerns before invoking the formal complaint process under Part VII of the RCMP Act. Commission employees serve as neutral and objective professionals that assist in dispute resolution by bringing the citizen into contact with the RCMP to arrive at a mutually satisfying resolution. The focus always remains on dealing with the concern facing the citizen.

This practical and effective alternative to the formal complaint process allows both the RCMP and the Commission to provide better and more timely service to the public. In this way, the citizen's concern can be addressed without abrogating the Commission's responsibility under the legislation or impinging on the rights of the complainant or the RCMP member who is the subject of the complaint. To date, the prompt and professional response from RCMP members, particularly supervisory RCMP members, has been a major factor in the success of this project.

Top of Page

The following narratives provide an illustration of how the Commission's service to the public model works:

• A group of high school students held a party at a location near the outskirts of a town. The party was boisterous and loud enough to cause people living nearby to call the police. When the police arrived, they determined that the party had gotten out of hand and that some of the people consuming alcoholic beverages were below the legal drinking age. Several of those at the party were arrested and taken into custody at the local detention centre. Many of the parents of the young people who were arrested and held in custody felt that the police had overreacted. The parents contacted the Commission with their concerns. It became apparent that there was the potential for a large number of complaints to be filed in relation to this incident.

Top of Page

Staff at the Commission contacted the officerin- charge of the local detachment, related the concerns that had been raised with the Commission and suggested the RCMP meet with the parents. As a result, the officer-incharge arranged a public meeting with the concerned citizens of the community where the issues were discussed and dealt with in a manner satisfactory to all concerned.

• A representative of an ethnic cultural association contacted the Commission to express his concern about the way his ethnic community had been portrayed by an RCMP spokesperson in an interview with the local press. The statement by the RCMP officer had given the impression that all members of the representative's community were involved in drug-related crimes.

Commission staff contacted the appropriate RCMP commanding officer, who immediately took steps to send a written statement to the press indicating that the RCMP had not intended to make such a generalization. In addition, the commanding officer sent a written apology to the representative of the ethnic cultural association. Because the RCMP dealt directly and quickly with the community representative who had expressed concerns, the matter was resolved without recourse to the formal complaint process.

Building on the service to the public model, the Commission is currently working with ADR specialists, in co-operation with the RCMP and the public, to develop and implement other ADR approaches to address citizens' complaints.

Top of Page

The Jurisdiction of the Commission

Last year, the Commission reported that 13 requests for review involved complaints about matters that were found to be outside the Commission's jurisdiction. For the most part, the RCMP investigated these complaints and the review process commenced before the jurisdiction issue was identified and addressed. In the past year, the Commission has made a concerted effort to review a complaint immediately on receipt to determine if the subject matter of the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. When a complaint is found to involve matters outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is not processed as a public complaint and, as a result, both Commission and RCMP resources are conserved. In addition, of course, the complainant is advised immediately.

In determining if the subject matter of a complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission, consideration is given to the intention of Parliament in creating the Commission as well as to the words used by Parliament in Part VII of the Act. The Commission was established to investigate/review conduct related to the policing functions performed by members of the RCMP. It was not established to investigate/review the personal conduct of members of the RCMP, nor was it established to investigate/review the administration or management of the Force.

Subsection 45.35(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act confers the right to complain about the conduct of a member performing "any duty or function" under the Act. Off-duty conduct does not involve the performance of a police duty or function and, therefore, complaints about such conduct fall outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. Occasionally, an offduty member will effectively place himself or herself on duty; in such a case, the conduct of the member can be the subject of a public complaint.

The phrase "conduct, in the performance of any duty" is, at first glance, very broad and would appear to include, for example, a management decision to suspend a member for disciplinary reasons. However, the phrase has to be read and understood in light of the entire Act. Section 31 permits a member to grieve "any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force." If the word "conduct" as used in subsection 45.35(1) were interpreted to include "decision[s], act[s] or omission[s] in the administration of the affairs of the Force," then there could conceivably be two separate tribunals looking into a complaint, using different procedures and, perhaps, arriving at different conclusions. This interpretation would be a duplication in the

complaints process and, in the Commission's view, frustrate the intention of Parliament.

Top of Page

To avoid such an absurd result, the Commission has restricted the interpretation of "conduct". Consequently, the Commission assumes jurisdiction over a complaint if it involves conduct in the performance of a duty or function under the Act unless the duty or function being performed is a "decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force." In that case the investigation/review of the conduct is generally left to the internal grievance process. Accordingly, decisions, acts or omissions relating to the employment relationship between the RCMP and its members is not "conduct" that can be the subject of a public complaint to the Commission.

On occasion, a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force can result in a person being aggrieved who does not have access to these internal grievance procedures. In those cases, because of the meaning ascribed to the word "conduct" in subsection 45.35(1), the Commission does not have jurisdiction even though there may not be another remedy available to the aggrieved person. Correction of such a gap in the legislation is the responsibility of Parliament and not the Commission.

The following examples illustrate the limits of the Commission's jurisdiction:

• Two persons were killed in a collision with a police vehicle. The police officer was criminally charged with dangerous driving causing death. A member of the public complained that the officer had lied while testifying at the trial. The Commission had no jurisdiction over this complaint because the member being complained against had been testifying in his own defence. The officer was not performing a duty or function under the Act. Had the officer been testifying in his capacity as a police investigator and, therefore, performing a duty under the Act, a complaint of this type would have been a valid public complaint within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
• A candidate who had failed to win a job with the Force filed a complaint about the RCMP hiring process. The decision not to hire the candidate was a decision made in the course of administering the affairs of the Force and, therefore, the complaint did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission. In this case, the candidate could not grieve the decision because only police officers and other persons employed under the Act have access to the grievance process.

Top of Page

Reviews

The Commission recognizes that timeliness is of great importance in conducting reviews of complaints and issuing reports to the parties concerned. During the past two years, the Commission has made it a key priority to eliminate the backlog of outstanding review cases. In this regard, 1998-1999 marked the introduction of new internal policies and procedures to allow for a more efficient processing of review files. Significant results were achieved.

The Commission can report 1999-2000 as another record year for the processing of review files and in the ongoing efforts to reduce its backlog. The Commission completed 277 review reports and, for the second year in a row, resolved a greater number of cases than it received. Although the total number of review cases completed this year is somewhat lower than in the previous year, many of the review files considered during the current year were more complex and therefore took longer to complete.

The Commission continues to refine its review processes, and additional staff have been hired to help prepare review reports. The Commission remains committed to attaining its goal of eliminating the backlog of review cases by the end of fiscal year 2000-2001.

Summaries of some review cases can be found in Appendix C of this report.

Top of Page

Investigations

Interim Report on New Brunswick Investigation

In May 1997, a provincial government decision to close schools in Saint-Simon and Saint-Sauveur, New Brunswick, led to demonstrations by the residents of these Acadian communities. In early 1998, the Commission received information that many residents were unhappy about the conduct of the RCMP during the demonstrations. This information was soon confirmed by receipt of 170 complaints containing some 400 allegations. As a result, on March 20, 1998, the Chair established a public interest investigation. During this extensive investigation, Commission investigators interviewed more than 300 people - complainants, independent witnesses, citizens and members of the RCMP - and analyzed many thousands of pages of documents.

On March 28, 2000, the Chair of the Commission submitted her interim report on this matter to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Chair now awaits the Commissioner's response to her findings and recommendations. Upon receipt and after consideration of the Commissioner's Notice, the Chair of the Commission will prepare her final report. Each complainant and each member of the RCMP whose conduct was under review will be given a copy of the Chair's final report. It is also the Commission Chair's intention to make this final report publicly available.

Top of Page

Number of Requests for Review by Province and Territory, 1999-2000

Number of Requests for Review per Year, 1995-1996 to 1999-2000

Top of Page

Interim Report on Nielsen Investigation

On September 23, 1998, the Chair of the Commission initiated a public interest investigation into the conduct of members of the RCMP during the detention of Mr. Kim Erik Nielsen of Kamloops, British Columbia, on May 21, 1997. In this incident, Mr. Nielsen was found apparently highly intoxicated and taken into custody by an RCMP officer. Approximately four hours after being delivered to the local detachment by the officer, Mr. Nielsen was discovered unconscious and not breathing. He was then taken to hospital, where he died 10 days later.

The Commission's investigation focused on alleged omissions or failure by members of the RCMP in the care and handling of Mr. Nielsen between the time he was initially detained and the point at which he was placed in a "drunk tank" at the Kamloops RCMP detachment. The Chair of the Commission completed and sent her interim report on this matter to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP on February 17, 2000. The Chair now awaits the Commissioner's response to her findings and recommendations. Upon receipt of the Commissioner's Notice, the Chair of the Commission will prepare her final report. Each complainant and each member of the RCMP whose conduct was under investigation will be given a copy of the Chair's final report. It is also the Commission Chair's intention to make this final report publicly available.

Top of Page

Hearings

APEC Hearing

In the aftermath of RCMP involvement in demonstrations at the University of British Columbia during the APEC conference in November 1997, the Commission received a large number of complaints about the conduct of certain members of the RCMP during those events. As a consequence, the Chair established a public interest investigation on December 9, 1997. On February 20, 1998, the Chair instituted a public interest hearing into these matters.

During this hearing, various parties brought legal challenges to the Federal Court of Canada. Ultimately, the Federal Court concluded that it was necessary to suspend the hearing until the Court had considered some of the issues. Before these matters could be dealt with by the Court, the Chair of the Panel resigned. On December 23, 1998, the Chair of the Commission re-established the public interest hearing to be presided over by the Honourable Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes started the new hearing in January 1999. It was originally expected that the hearing of witnesses would be complete by the end of 1999. However, the sheer number of witnesses to be heard and the unprecedented number of legal and other issues that had to be dealt with meant that testimony from witnesses did not wrap up until March 31, 2000.

Mr. Hughes is expected to submit his report on his findings and recommendations near the end of the year 2000. This report will be made publicly available.

Top of Page

Recommendations of the Chair

Each year, the Chair of the Commission makes recommendations in her interim and final reports sent to the Commissioner of the RCMP. In the Commissioner's Notice, the Commissioner of the RCMP must indicate whether he agrees with the Chair's recommendations and what further action will be taken with respect to the recommendations. If no further action is contemplated, the Commissioner must say why he has decided to take no further action. Over the years, the Commissioner has, on average, agreed with 85 percent of the Chair's recommendations.

Professional Activities

In carrying out its mandate, the Commission is involved in meetings with oversight agencies, including annual conferences held by the International Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE) and the Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE).

In September 1999, the Chair attended the IACOLE conference held in Sydney, Australia, to present a paper on a matter of deep personal concern - deaths of individuals who die while in police custody. The Chair's speech is available on the Commission's Web site.

During the year, the Commission was also visited by representatives of foreign agencies involved in the oversight of law enforcement, including Ms. Ana Maria Romero de Campero, the Bolivian Ombudsman, as well as Mr. Justice William Maina, Ethics Commissioner of Tanzania. The Commission is generally regarded as a model in civilian oversight of police conduct and these meetings help our foreign colleagues establish the necessary frameworks for making civilian police forces accountable to the public they serve.

Finally, in the autumn of 1999, the Commission made two presentations on the Commission's work and mandate to members of Parliament representing constituencies in Quebec and the western provinces.

Top of Page

Commission Reports and Recommendations (following Reviews, Investigations and Hearings) Over the Last Five Years

Special Projects

Publication of Police Pursuits and Public Safety

Since the Commission has been in operation, there have been a number of complaints about high-speed police pursuits and their often tragic outcomes. An analysis of the incidents giving rise to these complaints raised serious questions about the threat posed by such pursuits to public safety. As a result, in 1998 the Commission undertook an in-depth review of this aspect of police conduct. The Commission's report on its review, entitled Police Pursuits and Public Safety was completed in the fall of 1999, as scheduled.

In its analysis of police pursuits, the Commission engaged the services of a noted expert in the subject of police pursuits, Dr. Geoffrey Alpert of the College of Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. In addition, the Commission reviewed RCMP national policy on police pursuits, the policy of other police forces, and court rulings and other studies on the issue. In its report, the Commission recommended that the RCMP review its national policy on hazardous pursuits to ensure that they are undertaken only for serious offences and that the policy contain a definition of what constitutes a serious offence. The Commission also recommended that the use of emergency equipment be made mandatory for all police pursuits, including those that police refer to as "routine" pursuits. The Commission further recommended that RCMP training practices be reviewed to ensure that all officers involved in police pursuits are sufficiently skilled, particularly in risk assessment and decisionmaking, and that such training be provided on a continuing basis.

Since the release of the report, the RCMP has consulted with Commission officials as it considers and develops its response to the report's findings and recommendations. Such consultation is viewed as important in terms of identifying constructive ways for the RCMP to address the Commission's findings and implement the recommendations. Police Pursuits and Public Safety is available from the Commission on request and is also accessible on the Commission's Web site.

Top of Page

Review and Strategic Planning Exercise

During the past year, Commission staff were extensively involved in a comprehensive review of the Commission's activities and in the development of a new vision and strategic plan for the Commission's operations over the next five years. Further details of the review and strategic planning exercise appear in Part Three of this report.

PART THREE - Looking to the Future

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission (PCC) was created in 1988 as a civilian oversight agency to Canada's national police force. Under three different Chairs, the Commission has used the various tools provided by its legislation to develop a significant body of analysis and recommendations on a wide range of operational police policy issues including the conduct of high-speed chases, the use of the carotid hold and the duty of care to persons in custody. The RCMP has accepted most of the Commission's recommendations.

This year, the Chair and the management team of the Commission determined that it would be timely for the PCC to objectively examine its current activities and rethink its priorities for the next few years. The Commission therefore turned to Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC), an agency of Public Works and Government Services Canada, to design and implement a review and strategic planning process that would include both a fact-finding and a priorityidentification phase.

Between December 1999 and March 2000, CAC consultants conducted a series of individual and group interviews with PCC staff and management, and key stakeholders. Group interviews were held with PCC staff in the Western Region office and in Ottawa. Stakeholders interviewed included national and regional representatives of the RCMP (both managers and divisional staff representatives), public servants from the Department of the Solicitor General, special interest groups, such as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and representatives of complainants. In addition, CAC conducted "best practice" interviews with experts in police oversight and staff of two provincial civilian oversight agencies. They also reviewed relevant documentation, including legislation governing the PCC and that of similar federal agencies.

Top of Page

Based on this review, CAC concluded that weaknesses in the legislative mandate of the PCC inhibit its ability to provide full and effective civilian oversight of RCMP conduct. CAC found that the PCC lacks the power (and information) to oversee the RCMP's classification of complaints. As well, there is no express provision permitting the PCC to regulate the manner in which the RCMP investigates complaints. Such powers have been provided to other civilian oversight agencies in Canada, for example, in British Columbia and Ontario.

However, CAC also noted that despite these weaknesses in the legislative mandate of the PCC, the Commission could still have a positive impact on the quality and transparency of RCMP complaint investigations via its power to make findings and recommendations. By using that power and working in consultation with the Force and other oversight agencies, it could develop consistent standards for handling and investigating complaints. It could also significantly improve its information-gathering and analysis capacity with a view to assisting policy makers in the Department of the Solicitor General, provincial attorneys-general, and the RCMP itself.

PCC staff and management held a strategic planning retreat to consider these and other CAC findings. They developed the core elements of a working vision for the PCC, which captured the ultimate results that they saw flowing from a rejuvenated PCC, working in consultation with the RCMP and other oversight agencies. These core elements are being refined into a series of statements that will guide PCC work in the future. They can be summarized in a preliminary fashion as follows.

• The public will be aware of and confident in the Commission and the public complaints process.
• Excellent practice and behaviour on the part of the Force will be reinforced, while negative behaviour will change.
• The PCC will be responsive to the service expectations of the public and RCMP members.

• Canadian policing policies will change over time, as a result of findings and recommendations of the PCC and other agencies.
• The Commission itself will be a workplace of choice, characterized by high staff morale, teamwork and efficient processes.

Top of Page

PCC staff and managers also identified key initiatives for the Commission over the next five years. In 2000-2001 the PCC will eliminate any remaining backlog in reviews;

• create internal standards for reviews, including time standards and a complexity matrix for assessing the nature of the review required;
• develop a communications and consultation plan, with special emphasis on internal communications in the first year; and
• develop a strategic plan for information management that will deal with
  • (a) PCC management information,
  • (b) information on complaints received by the PCC, and
  • (c) rapid retrieval of information from previous PCC reviews, decisions and recommendations.

For subsequent years, the PCC will

• develop, in consultation with the RCMP and other key stakeholders, common standards for internal police investigation of complaints - PCC staff will be able to refer to these standards when a complainant requests a review;
• implement the PCC information management plan on public complaints, including a database of complaints received by both the PCC and the RCMP, which will be of significant value to policy makers reviewing national and regional trends; and
• implement a public communication program, especially targeting ethnic minorities or groups who do not speak one of Canada's two official languages. Members of these minorities, who, for various reasons, are frequently the subject of RCMP investigation, do not always understand the public complaints process.

The Commission is now developing work plans for these priorities and will report on the results in future reports to Parliament.

Top of Page

APPENDIX A

Commission Chair, Vice-Chair and Organization Chart

Shirley Heafey
Chair

Ms. Heafey was appointed Chair of the Commission on October 16, 1997. She served as a member-at-large of the Commission from 1995 until 1997. Prior to her appointment as full-time Chair of the Commission, Ms. Heafey was a barrister and solicitor in private practice in Ottawa and specialized in administrative and human rights law. She was also an ad hoc counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and to the City Solicitor of Ottawa. She has been re-appointed for a five-year term.

John Wright
Vice-Chair

Mr. Wright was appointed Vice-Chair of the Commission on August 26, 1998. He was a major in the Canadian Armed Forces specializing in military policing. He has been involved in several community criminal justice programs, is a labour arbitrator and mediator, and was the chief federal land claims negotiator in the Yukon Territory. Mr. Wright also currently serves as Chairperson of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Top of Page

APPENDIX B

Commission Budget

*This amount includes additional funds provided to the Commission to cover the costs of the APEC hearing.

Top of Page

APPENDIX C

Summary of Review Cases of Interest

Improper Actions

• In the course of investigating the death of a child, an RCMP member went to the home of a woman to interview her. While in her home, the RCMP member threatened to charge her with obstruction of justice if she did not accompany him to the detachment. He also implied that he would not leave her house unless she complied with the demand and attempted to prevent her from calling her lawyer by saying she could not call a lawyer while he was present. The woman eventually agreed to accompany the RCMP member to a neighbour's house to be interviewed. However, the RCMP member, without her consent, drove her instead to the RCMP detachment. The woman alleged in her complaint, in part, that the RCMP member had committed the crimes of extortion and kidnapping.

The Commission explained that it had jurisdiction to assess the propriety of the conduct of RCMP members, but not to determine criminal guilt or innocence. It did, however, review the propriety of the conduct of the RCMP member and others in relation to the detention and interrogation of the woman. After examining Canadian case law, the Commission concluded that the complainant had no lawful duty to reveal any information to the investigator, and the investigator had no lawful authority to compel her to answer questions. Therefore, the RCMP member's actions in threatening the complainant with charges of obstruction of justice if she did not do what he asked was done without lawful authority and was improper. The Commission recommended that the commanding officer of the relevant RCMP division apologize to the woman and inform the Commission and the woman of the corrective measures taken by the RCMP with respect to the member complained against. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the findings and recommendations.

• An RCMP member observed a man, the complainant, approaching young women at a bus stop and recognized him as someone who had been charged with sexual assault. The man was handing out printed material that asked persons to phone him. The RCMP officer saw him give such a handout to one young woman. The man had been released pending trial on a recognizance. The recognizance required the man not to rent his residence to female persons. He was also carrying a white cane. When questioned by the RCMP member, the man said he was using the white cane because his eyesight was adversely affected by heat. However, the temperature that day was 4° Celsius. The RCMP member told him that he could not sit at the bus stop. The man later complained that the RCMP member had acted improperly in telling him that he could not sit at the bus stop.

The Commission found that the RCMP member had acted properly in telling the complainant he could not sit at the bus stop. The evidence indicated that the complainant was attempting to entice young females to call him so that he could be invited into their homes. The RCMP member had a duty to prevent crime and preserve the peace. The RCMP member acted properly by trying to prevent criminal wrongdoing by the complainant against the young women.

• An RCMP member was involved in a motor vehicle collision that killed two people. The RCMP member was tried in criminal court for dangerous driving causing death. RCMP members were present in court when a verdict of not guilty was handed down at trial. They applauded the verdict "with high excitement and yelps of joy." The complainant alleged that the conduct of these RCMP members was unprofessional, inappropriate and insensitive.

The Commission concluded that the public expects police officers to maintain a professional demeanour at all times. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the response of the RCMP members in a public forum was indeed inappropriate and insensitive.

Top of Page

Neglect of Duty

• A woman's brother was the victim of an alleged contract killing. A person accused of the crime confessed his involvement in the crime to an RCMP member in the cellblock where he was being held. After the accused asserted his right to silence, the RCMP member used pressure tactics to get the accused to confess. He gave him a misleading statement about how long his sentence would be, and told him that he, the RCMP member, did not accept the accused man's claim that he had to follow his lawyer's advice to say nothing. Moreover, the RCMP member allowed an informer to visit the accused to further the investigation into the murder, but gave the informer no instructions about the limits he should use in soliciting incriminating statements from the accused. At the accused man's trial, the judge held that the incriminating statements were inadmissible, and the accused was acquitted.

The complainant, the sister of the murdered man, complained, in part, against the RCMP member for neglect of duty.

The Commission found that the RCMP member had acted improperly when he failed to respect the accused's right to remain silent. Police investigators should always keep in mind that incriminating information is likely to be submitted to a court for the purpose of proving the person guilty. The RCMP member should have been aware that his comments about sentencing and about a lawyer's advice would hinder the admissibility of any statement made by the accused. The Commission also found that there was a presumption that the RCMP member knew that the police informer would be trying to solicit incriminating evidence from the accused. The RCMP member should have instructed the informer that his approach should be passive and explained what that meant. The Commission recommended that the RCMP member be made fully aware of a detained person's Charter rights and of the limitations that apply to undercover operations to obtain an incriminating statement from an accused. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with this recommendation.

• A woman reported that her van had been stolen. When the vehicle was not recovered, she received compensation from her insurance company. With this money, she bought another car, which proved to be faulty and required extensive repairs. Some months after her vehicle had been stolen, the RCMP notified her that an RCMP member had located her vehicle on the day it was reported stolen. The member had then contacted a towing company to tow the car and put it in an impound lot. The woman complained against the RCMP detachment for neglect of duty.

Top of Page

The Commission found that the member who initially found the car, and who therefore had custody of it, had run the licence plates of the car, but not learned of its theft. However, he did not make additional checks that would have given him the information that the vehicle had been stolen. Unlike some other RCMP detachments, this detachment had no written policy in place specifying what action members should take when causing vehicles to be towed. Moreover, the form that was required in such cases did not appear to have been filled out in this case. The Commission thus concluded that the RCMP's failure to identify the vehicle after seizing it constituted neglect of duty. The

Commission recommended that the detachment in question create a policy to ensure that all vehicles seized under its authority be adequately checked for identity. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the Commission's conclusion that there had been a neglect of duty. He also advised that the detachment in question had already changed its policy and that he would request that the complainant be compensated for reasonable expenses arising out of the neglect.

• A young man died after a member of the RCMP used a carotid hold on him. A coroner's inquest decided that the cause of death was the application of this hold by the RCMP member. The RCMP hired a retired judge to conduct an independent review of the file in this case. The parents of the young man also initiated a public complaint against the conduct of the RCMP member. While they were awaiting the results of the complaint process, the RCMP released the judge's report. The parents were not notified by the RCMP of the release of the judge's report. Instead, they learned of it from the news media. Among other allegations, the parents complained that they failed to receive monthly status reports during the investigation of the complaint as required by law, and that the RCMP failed to provide notice to them of the release of the judge's report. The RCMP concluded that there was a failure to provide status reports, which was attributable to administrative error, and that the failure to provide the parents with notification of the release of the judge's report was an "unfortunate oversight."

Top of Page

The Commission concluded that, although the failure to provide status reports as required by law was an oversight, such a failure was still not acceptable. Moreover, the failure to advise the parents of the judge's findings and of the public release of the findings was more than an "unfortunate oversight." This was not an ordinary case. The Commissioner of the RCMP himself had become involved in the process. The Commission found that the officers of the RCMP had failed to provide the parents with adequate notice of the report. As the RCMP had already apologized to the parents for these failings, no further action was required.

• A young man was killed in a driving accident. The female driver of the other vehicle was injured around the mouth, which was bloodied. The RCMP members who attended at the scene of the accident did not ask her if she was drinking, nor did they detect any smell of alcohol. An ambulance took the injured woman to a hospital. No RCMP member was assigned to accompany the woman, nor was any blood sample taken from her. The father of the young man alleged, in part, that the RCMP member in charge of the investigation had neglected his duty by not conducting an adequate investigation that could have led to the laying of charges against the woman.

The Commission decided that the RCMP member in charge at the accident scene should have ensured that an RCMP member was with the woman until she was able to respond to questions from the RCMP. In the circumstances, it would have been proper for the RCMP member in charge of the accident scene to ensure that the RCMP member accompanying the woman to the hospital determine, as soon as possible, if a belief on reasonable grounds could be formed that would allow a demand for a blood sample to be made under the Criminal Code. The Commission therefore concluded that the conduct of the RCMP member in charge of the accident scene during the initial stages of the investigation was "woefully inadequate." It recommended that his supervisors review with him the necessity of making every possible effort to get information about the causes of a fatal accident. Although the Commissioner of the RCMP agreed that an RCMP member should have accompanied the woman to obtain her version of events at the earliest possible opportunity, he disagreed that the officer in question should have personally verified the sobriety of the woman. It was appropriate that he take the word of the other RCMP members at the scene that there was no evidence of drinking by the woman.

Top of Page

Right to Counsel and Use of Force

• A man and his friend were walking, apparently drunk, on the travelled portion of a road. RCMP members arrived and arrested them for being drunk in a public place. While being booked at the RCMP detachment, the man asked to make a telephone to call his lawyer. One RCMP member refused the request on the grounds that, given the man's history of being violent, the man might use the telephone as a weapon. Realizing that he was going to be placed in a cell, the man became irrational and agitated. An altercation ensued between him and two RCMP members, and he suffered injuries to a hand and foot. The man complained that the arresting officers used excessive force to subdue him, and that he was denied access to legal counsel before being placed in the cells.

The Commission found that, given the man's attempts to resist being placed in the cells, the force used against him by the RCMP members was reasonable. However, the Commission also concluded that the RCMP constable who denied the man the right to counsel acted improperly. The fear that a telephone may be used as a weapon is not a valid excuse to deny a person the constitutional right to counsel. The Commission recommended that members of the RCMP detachment in question be made aware of a detained person's right to counsel. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with these findings and the recommendation.

Top of Page

Unlawful Entry and Improper Arrest

• Two RCMP constables went to a house in response to a complaint of loud music. They noticed that the front door of the house was open. One constable thought he smelled marijuana and saw a small plastic bag that he thought contained marijuana. One of the men inside attempted to close the door on the constable, who used his foot to prevent the door from closing. The constable then attempted to pull the man from the house. The second constable helped him by using pepper spray on the man. The man complained, in part, that there was an unlawful entry into his residence, that the RCMP members used improper force on him and that he was unnecessarily detained.

The Commission concluded that the RCMP constable who entered the premises had unlawfully done so. The Criminal Code powers governing the entry of a private home by a peace officer generally require the officer to announce his presence and the purpose of the visit before entering the home. The RCMP member failed to announce this purpose and so the entry was improper. As well, at no time did the RCMP member who pulled the man out of the house inform the man that he was under arrest, nor were the circumstances such that he was required to use force to defend himself. Thus, the Commission concluded that the RCMP member used improper force. However, the RCMP constable who used pepper spray acted reasonably given that he feared for his and the other constable's safety. Because the man's actions did not amount to an offence, his arrest was improper and the detention was unnecessary. The Commission recommended that the constables receive guidance on what constitutes lawful arrest and that the RCMP apologize to the man. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with these recommendations.

Top of Page

Improper Use of Authority

• An RCMP member responded to a complaint that a horse was being stolen from some stables. On attending, he encountered a woman walking the horse on the side of the road. The RCMP member intervened to have the horse returned to the stables. The woman claimed that she owned the horse and complained that the RCMP member acted improperly, in part, by telling her she was not allowed to have the horse on the road. She also complained that the RCMP member had broken his promise to escort the horse out of the stables.

The Commission found that the complainant in this case was requesting the assistance of the RCMP to obtain possession of the horse by seizing the horse on her behalf. This was an effort by her to involve the criminal law power of the RCMP in what essentially was a civil dispute. The rights of the parties to possession of the horse were unclear to the RCMP member. The RCMP member acted properly in escorting the horse back to the stables, since the owner of the stables was the last person in peaceable possession of the horse and, under the Criminal Code, was entitled to defend that possession. The Commission also found that the RCMP acted properly in telling the woman that she was not allowed to have the horse on the side of the road. Under the circumstances, the RCMP member had to address a potentially hazardous situation to prevent possible injury or property damage. Thus, the Commission concluded that the RCMP member had acted properly with regard to these allegations.

Top of Page

Getting in Touch with the Commission

Head Office

Office Address
60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario

Mailing Address
RCMP Public Complaints Commission
P.O. Box 3423, Station 'D'
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4

Telephone and Fax
General inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(613) 952-1471
Toll-free for complaints . . . . . . . . . . 1-800-665-6878
Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (613) 952-8045

Western Region Office

Address
RCMP Public Complaints Commission
7337-137th Street
Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia
V3W 1A4

Telephone and Fax
General inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(604) 501-4080
(604) 501-4091
Toll-free for complaints . . . . . . . . . . 1-800-665-6878
Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (604) 501-4095

Web Address
http://www.pcc-cpp.gc.ca

Top of Page