Annual Reports
2003-2004
The Honourable Anne A. McLellan, P.C., M.P.
Solicitor General of Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada)
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Ms. McLellan,
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 2003-2004 fiscal year, for tabling in Parliament.
Yours very truly,
Shirley Heafey
Chair
June 2004
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
- Fairness
- Effective communication
- Respect
- Professionalism
- Objectivity
- Timeliness
- Excellence
- Integrity
- Teamwork
Table of Contents
Part I About the Commission
Part II Complaints and Investigations
Part III Policing Issues
Part IV Operations
Getting in Touch with the Commission
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 handling of their complaints;
- hold hearings and investigations; and
- report findings and recommendations.
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.
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 depends on its ability to formulate persuasive recommendations that the RCMP Commissioner will accept and implement.
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. The last restriction is that the alleged conduct must have occurred after September 30, 1988, the date the Commission became authorized to take complaints.
The Commission's jurisdiction may, in limited circumstances, extend to complaints about the personal conduct of members. 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.
It is important to note that the Commission does not have authority to review matters falling within the administration of the affairs of the RCMP. In other words, managerial or administrative concerns cannot be dealt with under Part VII of the public complaint process under the RCMP Act.
Commission Members
The legislation establishing the Commission provides for a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Chair may have a complement of 27 full- or part-time members who may be assigned to conduct hearings. 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 the minister responsible for policing in that province or territory.
Organizational Structure
Commission Budget
| |
Actual Spending 2003-2004 |
Planned Spending 2004-2005 |
| |
($ Thousands) |
| Salaries, wages and other personnel cost |
3,061* |
2,597 |
| Contributions to employee benefits plan |
516 |
558 |
| Subtotal |
3,577 |
3,155 |
| Other operating expenditures |
1,326** |
1,580 |
| Total net spending |
4,903 |
4,735 |
*This amount reflects funding received through Supplementary Estimates A and B.
**This amount includes additional funds provided for Modern Comptrollership.
Chair Shirley Heafey
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 was ad hoc counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the City of Ottawa. Her priorities include examining issues such as police conduct involving high-speed police pursuits, cell deaths, the treatment of Aboriginal Canadians and the treatment of persons with a mental illness.
Vice-Chair Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair Brooke McNabb
Mr. McNabb was appointed Vice-Chair of the Commission on May 1, 2003. With diverse professional experience as a professor of Conflict Resolution Studies at the University of Winnipeg, a lawyer, a mediator and a television journalist, one of Mr. McNabb's priorities at the Commission is increasing the use of interest-based Alternate Dispute Resolution processes.
Since 2001, the Commission has been experiencing a funding shortfall, which is comprised of many components:
- For over two years, the Commission has been double paying for one position because a senior Commission executive has been on language training in order to comply with the official languages policy requiring all executive-level employees to obtain a CBC bilingualism rating.
- The Commission filled the position of Senior Communications Officer following a strong recommendation made in an audit by the Auditor General to improve the Commission's internal and external communication activities. The Commission did not receive any additional funding for this position.
- The Commission also filled the position of Manager, Investigations to address a shortcoming in the ability to fulfil one of the core mandates of the Commission.
- Finally, the Commission added program responsibilities for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the Western Region Office. This decision enabled the Commission to offer better service to the public; however, the additional responsibilities required a reclassification of Analysts working in that office. The Commission did not receive any additional funds to fulfil this requirement.
The Commission had managed all of these funding pressures by internally reallocating funds from the operations budget over the past three years. However, that in turn resulted in a growing deficit in the operations budget.
In fiscal year 2003-2004, obtaining additional funding from Treasury Board became a necessity. As a result, the Commission received a total of $449,746 as additional funding to cover the deficit in operating expenditures and the ongoing salary shortfall. This additional funding was a one-time amount and a temporary solution. It does not address the ongoing salary shortfall that the Commission will face in the coming fiscal year.
A member of the public can make a complaint directly to the RCMP, the Commission or a provincial policing authority. The Commission Chair may also initiate a complaint.
Each complaint is forwarded to the RCMP, which conducts an investigation unless the Commission Chair deems it advisable in the public interest to investigate the complaint. The RCMP then reports the results of the investigation to the complainant and the RCMP member(s) involved.
If not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the matter, the complainant may refer the complaint to the Commission for review. Following this review, if the Chair is satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, she sends a final report to all parties involved, including the RCMP Commissioner and the Solicitor General of Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada).
If the Chair is not satisfied with the way the RCMP handled the complaint, she may review it without investigating further, ask the RCMP Commissioner to investigate further, initiate her own further investigation, or hold a public hearing.
Each Commission review of a complaint involves a thorough analysis of all relevant materials, the RCMP investigation and the law and policy related to the member(s)' conduct.
When the review is complete, and the Chair is not satisfied with the handling of the complaint by the RCMP, the Chair sends an interim report to the RCMP Commissioner and to the Minister setting out her findings and recommendations.
The RCMP Commissioner then informs the Chair and Minister, in writing, of any action to be taken in response to the Chair's findings and recommendations. Should the RCMP Commissioner reject any findings or recommendations, the RCMP Commissioner must include in this notice the reasons for the rejection. The Chair then prepares a final report that includes the RCMP Commissioner's response, as well as the Chair's final findings and recommendations, and sends it to everyone involved.
This year, the Chair determined that it was necessary to initiate three investigations in the public interest: one related to the RCMP's conduct with respect to the 1994 investigation into the disappearance and murder of a young child; the second involved the excessive use of force by an RCMP member on an Aboriginal youth; and a third involved an RCMP investigation into a fatal motorcycle accident. More details will be forthcoming in a future annual report.
The Vice-Chair initiated a public interest investigation involving the excessive use of force on a 13-year-old boy who incurred a broken nose during his arrest.
These investigations highlighted two important issues: excessive use of force by RCMP members in the performance of their duties and the carrying-out of inadequate investigations.
Excessive Use of Force
-
In March 2003, a newspaper reported that an RCMP member had physically assaulted two Aboriginal youths by punching them and choking them with a baton, and had then denied them their right to legal counsel while they were being held at the Detachment. Their Grand Chief, who represents 30 northern reserves, publicly stated that he was concerned about the alleged assault.
Given the gravity of the allegations, the Chair decided to initiate her own complaint and investigate the alleged assault in the public interest. At the conclusion of this annual report period, all relevant witnesses have been interviewed, an investigation report has been prepared and the Chair is currently finalizing the interim report, which will be sent to the Minister and the RCMP Commissioner.
-
In May 2003, the Commission received a complaint from the mother of a 13-year-old boy alleging that her son was struck in the face more than five times by an RCMP member. The boy sustained a broken nose and bruising around the eyes. The mother of the boy also took photographs of the boy's face, which clearly identified the severity of the injuries. The boy's mother maintains that the level of force used on her son by RCMP members constitutes physical assault as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Upon receiving the complaint, the Vice-Chair initiated a public interest investigation in light of the seriousness of the allegations. At the conclusion of this annual report period, all witnesses have been interviewed, an investigation report has been prepared and the Vice-Chair is currently finalizing the interim report, which will be sent to the Minister and the RCMP Commissioner. More details will be forthcoming in a future annual report.
Inadequate RCMP Investigations
-
An eight-year-old child disappeared and was murdered in August 1994. Within hours of her disappearance, the RCMP commenced an intense investigation aimed at finding the child as quickly as possible. In October 1994, her remains were located in a shallow grave not far from the child's home. An autopsy showed that the child had been strangled. The investigation continued and a suspect was eventually charged with the murder. The investigation concluded when, after a lengthy trial, the suspect was acquitted in January 2000.
The trial in this matter exposed serious mistakes made by the RCMP during its investigation into this tragedy. Two investigations were conducted to review what went so seriously wrong in this case. An outside police service investigated and reported on the results of its investigation. An internal RCMP review team conducted a detailed examination and concluded that there were many serious shortcomings in the investigation that had been conducted by members of the RCMP Detachment. The RCMP candidly set out those shortcomings in its report, along with a number of carefully considered recommendations to prevent these mistakes from recurring.
In a letter to the Commission, a concerned citizen requested an independent review of the entire case referring to "a multitude of mistakes and/or deliberate altering or otherwise tampering with statements and evidence." This citizen was not satisfied that the internal RCMP investigation was enough to alleviate the community's concerns.
The Chair investigated the complaint and placed particular emphasis on the various recommendations made by the RCMP review team, because she felt it was very much in the public interest. While the Chair acknowledges that nothing in her report will ever be a comfort to this family for the devastating loss of their child, she decided to embark on this endeavour to ensure that this type of situation never reoccurs.
In her interim report, the Chair noted that all the recommendations made in the RCMP's internal report were appropriately implemented at the RCMP Detachment. Based on the results of this Commission's investigation, the Chair is confident that the RCMP Detachment will be better prepared to deal with major cases that arise in the future and that the serious errors that occurred will not be repeated.
-
In May 2003, the Commission received a complaint from the father of a 17-year-old boy who was killed as a result of an accident when he rode his motorcycle into an excavation site on private property. The family of the boy alleged that the RCMP members had conducted an inadequate investigation into the accident and further alleged that they had made deliberate attempts to cover up the facts of the case. Upon receiving the complaint, the Chair decided that it was necessary to initiate an investigation in the public interest to determine whether or not the RCMP's investigation into the death of the boy had been conducted appropriately. At this time, the investigation is nearing conclusion and more details will be forthcoming in a future annual report.
Anti-Terrorism Legislation
-
In last year's annual report, the Chair reported that it was necessary to initiate an investigation in the public interest into a complaint alleging that the RCMP had executed a search warrant at a woman's residence in Montreal without justification. The woman, who is of Arabic descent, was later told that the search had been conducted in the context of suspected terrorism activities.
The Chair has been unable to make findings in relation to this case, as the RCMP will not provide the Commission with the information contained in the search warrant. Consequently, the Chair cannot address the allegations contained in the complaint unless the RCMP reverses its decision or until Parliament brings more clarity to the legislation. More details will be forthcoming in a future annual report.
Police Pursuits
-
Last year, the Chair initiated a complaint and public interest investigation after learning, through the media, that an innocent bystander had been the victim of a serious motor vehicle accident, which occurred as a result of an RCMP pursuit. The force of the impact was so severe that the victim's car ended up on the front lawn of an adjacent house and the innocent victim spent several weeks in the hospital with serious injuries.
This investigation has taken longer than initially anticipated due mainly to unavoidable complications encountered during the RCMP's criminal investigation into the theft of the motor vehicle involved in causing the accident. To date, all interviews have been completed, an investigation report has been prepared and the Chair is presently finalizing her interim report, which will be sent to the Minister and the RCMP Commissioner.
-
As profiled in our previous annual report, during morning rush hour, a sports utility vehicle (SUV) was reported stolen. Two RCMP members, driving an unmarked vehicle, located and followed the SUV, eventually stopping behind it at a red light. The officers had called for a marked police cruiser to assist them. Consequently, an RCMP cruiser pulled up behind the unmarked vehicle, while another, approaching from the opposite direction, tried to box in the SUV before the light turned green.
The SUV bolted at high speed when the light turned green and the three police vehicles activated their emergency equipment and followed. Shortly thereafter, the SUV crashed into another vehicle, causing injuries to the family in the vehicle. The suspect was apprehended at the scene. One of the RCMP members told a witness at the scene that the RCMP had been in pursuit, but that the pursuit had been called off. The RCMP subsequently denied that the members had been in pursuit.
The Chair's interim report found that a pursuit, albeit of short duration, had indeed taken place and that the pursuit had not been properly reported as required by RCMP policy. The Chair further found that the RCMP members involved had appropriately terminated the pursuit because of the danger posed to public safety, but that some members had continued to follow the suspect.
The suspect's perceptions tend to dictate the outcome of the incident and, in this particular case, the members continued to follow the suspect after terminating the pursuit and the suspect believed that the police were right behind him for the duration of his flight. As a result, he drove the stolen vehicle as if being pursued.
All pursuits are dangerous regardless of their duration. They set in motion a sequence of events that can have tragic consequences despite appropriate risk assessments and responsible decisions taken by officers. The Commission continues to monitor police pursuits closely to ensure that public safety is appropriately addressed and in order to be proactive in the public interest.
In addition, the Chair noted the innocent victims' perceptions at the scene of the accident. They felt their situation and injuries were given little or no attention from the numerous RCMP members at the scene. It appears that one RCMP constable approached the vehicle to verify whether anyone was injured. However, given that at least eight RCMP members arrived at the scene within minutes of the accident, at least one of the eight RCMP members should have tended to and assisted the victims until the ambulance arrived.
When we reported this case in our previous annual report, the RCMP Commissioner had not yet replied to the Chair's interim report. The RCMP Commissioner subsequently concurred that the incident under review constituted a pursuit, and that the members should have submitted documentation as required by the RCMP's National Pursuit Policy. In her final report, the Chair reiterated her intention to continue reviewing the practice of RCMP members continuing to follow suspect vehicles once the pursuit is terminated, in light of the current research on the dangerousness of this practice.
The Commission Chair can decide to initiate either a further investigation by the Commission or request a further investigation by the RCMP, if after examining the relevant material provided by the RCMP, the content or conduct of the investigation is not adequate for findings to be made. In this annual report period, the Chair decided that it was necessary for the Commission to independently conduct two further investigations, both involving complaints from Aboriginals.
-
In August 1997, two RCMP members attended the residence of the complainant for the purpose of arresting her son. When they arrived, one member went to the back door of the house and the other to the front. They began searching for her son in spite of the complainant's objections and her request to be provided with a search warrant. When they attempted to search the bedroom area of the house, a physical struggle ensued between both RCMP members and the complainant. Shortly thereafter, the RCMP members decided to leave the house rather than allowing the situation to escalate further. The complainant alleged that the RCMP members searched her residence without a warrant and used improper force on her.
The complainant and various witnesses refused to cooperate with the RCMP's public complaint investigation due to an apparent climate of mistrust between the Aboriginal community and the RCMP. However, the Commission was able to interview these persons as part of its further investigation. The Chair's interim report found, based on the notebook evidence of the RCMP member who first entered the residence, that the RCMP members did not properly announce their entrance into the residence and therefore any use of force was improper.
The RCMP Commissioner disagreed that the RCMP members made an improper announcement and suggested that the member's notes should not have been depended upon in isolation to make a finding. In her final report, the Chair reiterated the findings made in her interim report and pointed out that a member's notes are meant to accurately record events contemporaneous in time to their occurrence. The RCMP Commissioner had recently commented, in several other files, on the requirement for proper note-taking by members. However, he suggested in his response in this case, that the RCMP member's notes should not have been relied upon by the Commission. This position is unreasonable, as the Commission must be able to rely upon the information contained in members' notes to make findings and recommendations.
-
In December 2000, an RCMP constable stopped a vehicle driven by the complainant and his wife. The Constable was conducting random vehicle checks for impaired drivers in accordance with the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). At that time, the complainant acknowledged that he had consumed two beers at a local bar, which led the Constable to request that he submit to an alcohol-screening test. The complainant registered a "warning" on the alcohol-screening test. His wife would not consent to the test. The Constable, therefore, decided that he could not allow either one of them to drive, and consequently contacted a towing company to impound the vehicle. After the complainant was released and the vehicle was towed, the Constable offered the complainant and his wife a ride to a location of their choice. They both refused the offer. Consequently, they were left to walk home in minus forty-degree temperatures.
The Commission conducted a further investigation into the incident because the RCMP had not interviewed the two complainants and key information concerning the location of the incident was not in the file. Upon reviewing all the evidence, including the additional information obtained in the Commission's investigation, the Chair concluded that the complainant's allegations were not supported.
The RCMP Commissioner supported the findings of the Commission. Due to the importance of the issue, he noted that he would be bringing this case to the attention of the Assistant RCMP Commissioner, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Section, and to the attention of the Manager of the Public Complaints Section with the expectation that this case would be used to develop best practices in dealing with similar situations.
No further investigations by the RCMP were requested during this annual report period.
Public hearings are an option open to the Commission when dealing with complaints. Since its inception in 1988, the Commission has conducted 17 public hearings. There were no public hearings held during this fiscal year.
The Commission enjoys continued success with its ADR initiative. When ADR is deemed appropriate, Commission Analysts act as impartial facilitators to bring the complainant and the RCMP member(s) into contact with each other as soon as possible to informally resolve issues of concern.
Using ADR, the complaint may be resolved without going through the formal public complaint process. In every case, the complainant retains the option of making an official complaint. The prompt and professional response from RCMP members, particularly supervisors, has been a major factor in the success of this initiative.
When successful, ADR can provide greater satisfaction to complainants and the RCMP member(s) involved because it can resolve the matter very quickly. It is also cost-efficient because there is no RCMP investigation and no Commission review. The Vice-Chair, an expert in ADR, has undertaken to increase the use of ADR at various stages of the Commission's processes.
There was a 58 percent increase in the number of ADR cases from last fiscal year. During 2003-2004, the Western Region office used ADR in 466 cases, successfully resolving 446 of them. Only 20 resulted in formal complaints.
Occasionally, a Commission Analyst will file a report with the RCMP when the citizen does not wish to file a formal complaint and does not request a response from the RCMP, but wants a supervising officer to be aware of his or her concern(s). Sixty-one such reports were filed with the RCMP over the last year.
The following examples of successful ADR cases illustrate just some of the issues that can be resolved using this technique.
Police Treatment of Aboriginal Canadians
The Commission continues to make a concerted effort to reach out to Aboriginal communities. Alternate Dispute Resolution is often a better option to filing a formal complaint as illustrated by the following cases.
-
The complainant believed he and some friends were stopped because they were Aboriginal. The Commission arranged a meeting between the complainant and an RCMP inspector. The matter was fully discussed and the complainant subsequently understood the reasons for the member's actions. The complainant expressed his desire to become an RCMP officer and he was referred to the Aboriginal Recruiting Unit. The complaint was withdrawn and the matter resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
-
Although most ADR cases are successfully concluded within three days, this last year, for more than six months, the Commission facilitated an informal resolution involving an Aboriginal family. The issue involved the death of a 15-year-old family member. The family believed the child died as a result of an assault and they were not satisfied with the RCMP's investigation. A retired Justice who is well respected by the Aboriginal community agreed to review the contents of the police file and autopsy results. He did this without charge. The complaint was withdrawn and the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
-
Two RCMP members served the complainant with a warning letter from his Native Band. The complainant felt the RCMP inappropriately involved itself in Band business by delivering the letter. A corporal at the local Detachment explained that this is a service the RCMP provides to small communities and he agreed to speak with the complainant to provide an explanation for their actions. Following the conversation, the complaint was withdrawn and the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Family and Child Custody Issues
Frequently, a citizen will call the Commission because he/she is not satisfied with the progress of an investigation by the RCMP
The Commission receives a number of calls each year regarding family and child custody issues. Often, it is simply a matter of understanding how the law pertains to the citizen's situation as the following example illustrates.
-
A complainant had concerns about picking up her five-year-old daughter from the estranged grandmother's house and so she requested the assistance of the RCMP. She was refused and told that it was a family matter to be dealt with through the courts. A Commission Analyst arranged for the complainant to speak with the local Inspector, who confirmed that unless there is a court order with an enforcement clause, the RCMP is not able to act in child custody matters. The Inspector invited the complainant to call any time she had a question or concern. The complainant was satisfied and did not lodge a complaint.
Dissatisfaction With the Level of RCMP Service
Frequently, a citizen will call the Commission because he/she is not satisfied with the progress of an investigation by the RCMP. The citizen may be hesitant to contact the RCMP directly but is comfortable speaking with a Commission Analyst. Arranging for the exchange of information between the citizen and the RCMP can resolve the issues without a formal complaint being lodged as illustrated in the example below.
-
An 18-year-old female was attacked while at school. Although the RCMP attended and took a report, she was concerned charges would not be laid. A Commission Analyst contacted the local Watch Commander, who met with the complainant. The complainant explained that she felt she had been lost in the system. The Watch Commander reassured her that this was not the case and that someone would certainly be available to assist her. He also referred her to Victim Services. The complainant was satisfied and withdrew her complaint.
Confusion Over RCMP Procedures
Citizens are often uncertain of the level of authority RCMP members have under the law and question their actions. A Commission Analyst can sometimes facilitate clarification of this issue as illustrated by the case below.
-
RCMP members searched the complainant's home without a search warrant, even though the complainant had refused them access without one. The complainant was home with her infant child at the time and both she and the child were frightened by the members' language. The Commission facilitated a meeting between the complainant and a supervising officer from the Detachment to discuss the situation. He explained the circumstances under which peace officers may enter a dwelling, explaining that, in her case, her roommate was the subject of a court order, which allowed the RCMP access to her residence. The supervising officer apologized for the words used by the members while searching the house and for upsetting her baby. The complainant was satisfied with the explanation and withdrew her complaint.
Property Issues
When citizens call the Commission because their property has not been returned to them at the time they were released from custody, a Commission Analyst can assist as illustrated by the following example.
-
The complainant was detained at a detachment prior to being transferred to a correctional centre. At the complainant's request, friends dropped off his duffle bag containing his wallet and most of his belongings at the Detachment. Upon the complainant's release from the correctional centre, he tried to retrieve his belongings but was told the bag was never received at the Detachment. A Commission Analyst spoke with a member at the Detachment who located the bag within a half hour. The complainant was able to pick up his bag that day, was satisfied with the result and subsequently withdrew his complaint.
Use of Resources
Citizens, especially in rural areas, often have concerns about the deployment of RCMP resources. Often it is a matter of understanding what limitations the RCMP faces. A Commission Analyst can sometimes facilitate sharing of information as illustrated in the case below.
-
A complainant's rural community had been experiencing repeated break-ins and the citizens were concerned, as they do not have access to 24-hour policing. An Analyst contacted the local Detachment, asking if a senior officer could attend the Municipal Council Meeting to hear information from citizens on the level of crime the community was experiencing and to explore various ideas on how best to protect themselves and their homes, including starting up a Rural Crime Watch. The region's superintendent agreed to attend the meeting and to consider temporarily using special officers to address the crime spree. The complaint was withdrawn and all parties were satisfied with the efforts made by the RCMP.
Cases of interest are monitored by the Chair through media reports, coroners' inquests, criminal court cases and public complaints. Cases of interest to the Chair include treatment of Aboriginal persons by police, use of force, high-speed police pursuits, new police powers under the anti-terrorism legislation, organized crime legislation, treatment of persons in custody, and cell deaths. The Chair also monitors matters involving other police services and police oversight agencies in order to maintain a broad perspective of emerging policing issues across Canada.
Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness
The issue of police treatment of persons with mental illness is of particular interest to the Chair. In some cases, interaction between police and people with mental illness has tragic consequences. It has been noted that new approaches involving police, mental health agencies, communities and media are required to improve treatment of persons suffering from mental illness. In this annual report, you will find a case summary about an incident where a mentally-ill person received inappropriate treatment from the RCMP. In her final report to the RCMP, the Chair recommended that police should be provided with up-to-date training on mental health crisis intervention as well as national policy guidance on how to apprehend someone experiencing a mental health crisis.
Focus on Police Pursuits
Another major area of interest involves RCMP participation in police pursuits. Empirical evidence has determined that police chases are often conducted for minor offences. The Commission previously made recommendations on how to avoid putting the public and police officers at risk during such chases. Innocent bystanders can, and have been, seriously injured during police chases conducted for minor offences. Inadequate policies, poor judgement by the police or lack of risk assessment skills can place lives in danger. Public safety must always be paramount when a pursuit is undertaken. It may not be fair, but police cannot rely on the person being pursued to be mindful of public safety.
Over the last year of monitoring RCMP participation in police chases, it was made clear that most take place when police detect traffic violations such as broken taillights, property offences such as stolen vehicles, and speeding. Other pursuits are initiated for suspected impaired driving, and less frequently, for offences such as thefts or armed robbery. The majority of research into pursuits reveals that drivers who fail to pull over for the police or who flee the police do not do so because of the seriousness of the offence, but predominantly do so because they are frightened and do not want to face the consequences of the minor charges that could be brought against them.
In 1999, the Commission reviewed the dangers of police pursuits in its report entitled Police Pursuits and Public Safety that can be found at CPC Website. The report contains a concise description of the dangers inherent in these types of situations. It recommends that pursuits should only be undertaken for serious offences. The RCMP's policy should provide members with some discretion but provide greater clarity and direction in determining what constitutes an offence warranting pursuit. The report also highlights the model used by the Miami-Dade police force in Florida, which restricted pursuits to "violent felonies only." This decision by the Miami-Dade police service resulted in no increase in crime rates nor in the number of suspects fleeing police.
Provincial police services and international police oversight agencies have either incorporated or referenced the findings of the Chair's report to bring changes to this policy area. In light of the number of pursuits that are still initiated for minor offences, the Commission urges the RCMP to rethink its present policy and to adopt all of the recommendations made by the Commission in its ground-breaking report.
Monitoring the Relationship Between the RCMP and Aboriginal Canadians
Reports of a troubled relationship between police services and Aboriginal Canadians surface in the media almost daily. Historically, Aboriginal Canadians have underutilized the Commission's process and, as a result, it has been difficult for the Commission to contribute to the search for solutions. In the first 13 years of the Commission's existence, less than 10 reviews were conducted at the request of Aboriginal Canadians and less than 50 complaints were lodged by Aboriginal Canadians through the Commission. To put this in context, since the Chair assumed her duties in October of 1997, the Commission has received approximately 1,100 requests for review and some 15,000 complaints.
In last year's Annual Report, the Chair noted some of the outreach activities undertaken by the Commission and indicated that complaints from the Aboriginal community were to be given priority. Pursuant to that commitment, approximately nine reviews of complaints from Aboriginal complainants were completed in the past year and, in one case where the relationship was particularly troublesome, the Commission offered to assist the RCMP and the community in resolving their differences.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) has, in recent years, taken a leading role in assisting members of the Saskatchewan Aboriginal communities in accessing the Commission's process and the Chair would like to acknowledge the great service the FSIN has rendered to its constituents in this respect.
Commission Treatment of Sensitive Information
The collection, use and protection of sensitive information – referring specifically to the identity of confidential informants, some investigative techniques and matters involving national security – are essential to successful policing.
Information provided by the RCMP is also the lifeblood of the public complaint process. The Chair of the Commission is committed to maintaining the security of sensitive information entrusted to the Commission for the purposes of conducting a review. In this respect, the Commission and the RCMP share a common belief.
With the assistance of the RCMP, the Commission has taken the necessary steps to ensure its offices are physically secure. In anticipation of handling sensitive information, many of the senior officials have "Top Secret" security clearances and all employees of the Commission have a minimum of "Enhanced Reliability" clearances.
The Commission ensures against inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information in individual cases by, for example, asking the RCMP to review a draft report prior to its release to the parties. The Commission abides by all government policies and regulations dealing with the handling of sensitive information and is bound by the provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.
The Commission has described its Vision as "Excellence in policing through accountability." The Commission has stated that "Integrity" is one of its core values. Like the RCMP, the Commission believes in the rigorous protection of sensitive information and it will not betray the public trust by allowing its disclosure.
Federal Court Application
In February 2003, the Commission commenced a proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada in order to clarify its right to have access to information necessary for the proper review of a complaint. This issue arose in the context of a complaint where two RCMP members and several police officers from a provincial police force had searched the complainant's barn. The complainant alleged, among other things, that an RCMP member had improperly obtained the search warrant.
When reviewing this complaint, the Commission requested from the RCMP a copy of all materials relevant to the complaint pursuant to paragraph 45.41(2)(b) of the RCMP Act. The materials subsequently received from the RCMP did not include the affidavit sworn by the RCMP member who had obtained the search warrant. In addition, portions of the RCMP members' notes had been blanked out without explanation. Despite several requests for the missing materials, the RCMP continued to decline to provide all relevant materials to the Commission, contrary to its statutory obligation.
The Commission commenced this proceeding in its capacity as principal custodian of the public complaint process, with a view to ascertaining the extent of the RCMP's obligation to provide information to the Commission. Guidance from the Federal Court in this particular case is crucial because, without access to all the relevant materials, the Commission cannot honour the mandate given to it by Parliament and conduct a review of the complaint. Specifically, the Commission is unable to assess the propriety of the RCMP member's conduct in obtaining the search warrant.
The decision from the Federal Court will assist the Commission in defining the scope of its right to access information essential to the proper review of complaints and in bringing any shortcomings in the public complaint process to the attention of Parliament.
The Commission presented its case to the Federal Court in February 2004 and is awaiting a decision in the matter. The decision from the Federal Court will assist the Commission in defining the scope of its right to access information essential to the proper review of complaints and in bringing any shortcomings in the public complaint process to the attention of Parliament.
Making a Difference to RCMP Conduct
We are often asked what impact Commission recommendations have on RCMP conduct. One measure is the number of findings and recommendations accepted by the RCMP Commissioner. Over the last year, the RCMP Commissioner accepted 75 percent of all findings critical of member conduct and 79 percent of our recommendations.
In the majority of review cases, the Commission determines that RCMP members conducted themselves appropriately. However, the real value added to Canadians, including the RCMP, is demonstrated when the Commission finds that there has been improper conduct and makes recommendations to ensure that such conduct is not repeated. The following cases illustrate how the Commission is influencing RCMP conduct and national policing policy, one case at a time.
The Commission observes very closely RCMP treatment of persons in a mental health crisis. The following review case clearly illustrates why this issue is of such great concern to the Commission.
-
RCMP members tried to arrest the complainant's son pursuant to an Involuntary Medical Examination Order. The complainant's son was 26 years old and suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Due to the manner in which the RCMP members handled this delusional and frightened man, a violent confrontation ensued between him and the members that placed all participants at risk. The son was barricaded in his home, was known to police, was clearly having delusions, and did not initially pose a danger. The situation escalated to the point where the complainant's son was pepper sprayed 25 times in 40 minutes, an RCMP member had his gun trained on the scene, and the son then used sticks as makeshift weapons to prevent the police from entering.
The confrontation ended almost immediately when the complainant arrived and reassured her son, who then quickly surrendered to the RCMP. In her complaint, the woman alleges that, while executing the Order to apprehend her son, the RCMP members used excessive force; the RCMP Corporal, who knew her and her son well, failed to inform her that her son was going to be arrested; and RCMP members damaged her son's home.
The Commission Chair concluded that some RCMP members used excessive force against the complainant's son. The Chair did not totally fault the members for their actions in this particular case. The deficiencies in the members' response primarily resulted from an absence of RCMP training and policy guidance on how to apprehend someone who is in the midst of a mental health crisis. Although it is widely recognized that law enforcement officers require such training, most RCMP members have not received training of this nature.
The Commission noted that a mental illness training program for RCMP recruits had been discontinued. The RCMP Commissioner subsequently made the decision to reinstate the training program for recruits. The Commission also recommended that the complainant and her son receive an apology, and that the complainant be compensated for the damage to his residence. The RCMP Commissioner agreed with these recommendations.
Most importantly, the Commission noted that it was the RCMP's responsibility to ensure that all members who deal with clients who are in a mental health crisis receive training and policy guidance on how to approach and arrest persons who are experiencing such a crisis.
The Commission's report on this incident can be found in the reports and publications section of the web site
It is of interest that a 2003 judicial inquiry into the RCMP shooting death of Mr. Norman Reid, released after the Commission issued its report, made similar findings – that RCMP training on mental illness was non-existent or inadequate. Once again, in response to the inquiry, the RCMP Commissioner did not agree that specialized training on mental health crisis intervention is required.
The Commission noted that it was the RCMP's responsibility to ensure that all members who deal with clients who are in a mental health crisis receive training and policy guidance on how to approach and arrest persons who are experiencing such a crisis.
Health Canada estimates that 20 percent of Canadians will experience mental illness during their lifetime. The remaining 80 percent of us are likely to be affected through a mental illness in a family member, friend or colleagues. This is an issue that is important to all Canadians.
One of the policy issues addressed by the Commission in its review cases is the importance of seeking appropriate medical treatment when persons in custody appear injured. The following two cases illustrate the significance of the issue and the RCMP's acknowledgement of its importance.
-
A complainant was arrested for being drunk in a public place and was lodged alone in a cell. A few hours later, another person was placed in the cell. The complainant was assaulted twice by her cellmate. After the second assault, the complainant was moved to an empty cell. Two intoxicated people were subsequently placed in the same cell and a third assault involving the complainant took place. The complainant was moved to another empty cell. After she was lodged in this last cell, the Watch Commander directed that the complainant be taken to the hospital where a doctor examined her.
The complainant alleged that the RCMP member who moved her from the first cell to the second cell failed to provide her with appropriate care and protection after the second assault. The Vice-Chair found that the RCMP member acted appropriately by removing the complainant from the cell. However, the member failed to provide her with medical aid as required by RCMP policy. The Vice-Chair recommended that this RCMP member be made aware of RCMP policies regarding medical attention for injured persons in custody.
The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Vice-Chair's findings and recommendations.
-
RCMP members arrested a man for breach of recognizance and then lodged him in detachment cells. The man, who was subsequently diagnosed with a sprained foot, complained to the Commission that the subject members neglected their duty by not providing medical attention while he was in custody. The RCMP investigation report did not support the complaint and the man requested a review by the Commission.
In his interim report, the Vice-Chair found that the subject members had failed to correctly assess the man's physical state prior to his being lodged in cells. The Commission Vice-Chair recommended that the subject members receive training to enable them to properly assess a person's physical state before incarceration and to recognize the need to seek medical assistance when a person shows signs of illness or injury.
The RCMP Commissioner fully supported the Commission's finding and recommendations. The Commissioner also acknowledged that when a person indicates that he/she is sick or injured, members should err on the side of caution and have the person examined by a doctor.
In one case, the Commission provided a legal analysis of the Charter right to a reasonable opportunity to consult a lawyer. The RCMP Commissioner rejected this legal analysis but did not provide a compelling rationale for disagreement. The Commission wishes to highlight the importance of respecting this fundamental right, which is illustrated in the summary below.
-
A complainant was observed late at night driving erratically. The RCMP member at the scene pulled her over and determined that she was legally impaired. The member advised the complainant that she was under arrest for impaired driving and demanded a breath sample. The complainant was then brought to the RCMP Detachment.
Before providing a breath sample, the complainant asked to consult with her lawyer. She was initially unable to contact her lawyer and called a relative instead. The complainant asked her relative to contact her lawyer and requested to have the lawyer call her at the Detachment. The member again demanded that the complainant provide a breath sample and she complied.
The complainant alleged that she was never advised she was under arrest, given the reason for her detention or informed of her right to contact her lawyer. The Chair did not support the first two allegations and found that the RCMP member's conduct in this respect was appropriate.
However, the Chair expressed concern that the member, even though he knew the complainant had asked that her lawyer call her at the Detachment, insisted that she provide a breath sample. The Courts agree that above and beyond the obligation to advise a person of his or her rights as set out in paragraph 10 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to contact a lawyer includes the reasonable opportunity to have that consultation.1
To comply with the requirements of the Criminal Code for taking breath samples, the first sample must be taken in the first two hours after the moment the infraction was allegedly committed. After the complainant made her calls, there was more than one hour left before the time elapsed for taking a sample. There was no urgency for the member to proceed with taking a sample. The Chair found that the complainant did not have a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer.
The Chair recommended that the RCMP member be made aware of the importance of ensuring that a detained person be given an adequate opportunity to contact a lawyer.
The RCMP Commissioner did not agree with the Chair's finding or recommendation on this allegation. He held that the member had given the complainant the opportunity to contact a lawyer. He then said that after the complainant was unsuccessful in speaking with her lawyer of choice, there was no indication that the member would not have allowed her to contact another lawyer.
The Chair did not dispute that the complainant had been given an opportunity to try to contact a lawyer. However, the Chair reiterated in her final report that the law requires the police to do more. They must refrain from attempting to elicit evidence from a suspect until he or she has had a reasonable opportunity to make contact with legal counsel. It was not reasonable, in this case, to insist on a breath sample when there was no urgency and the complainant was waiting to hear from her lawyer.
Occasionally there are review cases that involve egregiously excessive uses of force. In the example below, the RCMP member involved was found to have incited an intoxicated person into a physical confrontation that left the complainant injured. The RCMP Commissioner also took strong exception to the member's conduct, as well as the inadequacy of both the RCMP complaint investigation and report.
-
A complainant was involved in an altercation at an inn and three RCMP members attended to investigate. The complainant told the members that he was assaulted by the bar's manager and demanded that the RCMP take his statement. One of the members, a constable, refused to take his complaint as the complainant had been drinking, and he told the complainant to go to the Detachment the following day to give his statement.
The complainant continued to demand that the member take his statement. He was arrested for causing a disturbance and taken to the Detachment. Upon arrival at the Detachment, the same Constable requested that the other constables present leave the area. The complainant alleged that after the other constables left, the Constable assaulted him by striking him in the head approximately six times with his right hand.
Following its investigation, the RCMP told the complainant that its report on the complaint had been forwarded to the Crown for review. Subsequently, the Crown determined that the evidence did not support the allegations of assault. The complainant was not satisfied with the results of the RCMP investigation and requested a review by the Commission.
While the Commission does not have authority to make findings with respect to civil or criminal responsibility, such as allegations of assault, the Commission does have jurisdiction to review whether the conduct of RCMP members was appropriate.
The Commission found that while travelling to the Detachment, the Constable in question invited the complainant to strike him once his handcuffs were removed. After arriving at the Detachment and requesting that the other members leave the area, the Constable removed the complainant's handcuffs and again invited the complainant to fight, assuring him that he would not be charged for striking an member.
The member easily dodged the inebriated complainant's swing and then struck the complainant a number of times, knocking him to the ground. When the other members re-entered the area, they noted that the complainant was bleeding and injured, and his head wound required stitches.
The Vice-Chair concluded that the Constable used excessive and unwarranted force against the complainant, and that the Constable's conduct in inciting this altercation represented a serious breach of his duties and responsibilities as a peace officer. The Vice-Chair recommended that the Constable receive operational guidance, that he apologize to the complainant, and that the Detachment install a video recording system in the secure bay where this incident occurred. The Commission's report also expressed strong concerns regarding the thoroughness and impartiality of the RCMP's investigation and handling of this complaint.
The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Vice-Chair's findings and recommendations and expressed his concern about the inappropriate handling of this public complaint. The RCMP Commissioner acknowledged that the person who had signed the letter of disposition had failed to discharge his duty to review the subject member's conduct and he indicated that he would address this concern most emphatically in a separate letter to the Commanding Officer of the subject Division.
In the case illustrated below, the Commission reviewed a complaint where a man was restrained by RCMP members using the carotid control hold. This use of force, among others, left the man with serious injuries. The significant outcome of this review was agreement by the RCMP Commissioner that the time was right to update the training tools used by the RCMP to instruct members on proper use of the carotid control hold and a reminder regarding appropriate uses of force.
-
A man who went to an RCMP Detachment to report an incident of "road rage" was told that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. A struggle ensued and force was used to place the man under arrest. A complaint was subsequently made to the Commission alleging that members had used excessive force during the arrest and that one member had improperly applied the carotid control hold and a chokehold, which resulted in injuries including a torn lung and larynx.
The significant outcome of this review was agreement by the RCMP Commissioner that the time was right to update the training tools used by the RCMP to instruct members on proper use of the carotid control hold and a reminder regarding appropriate uses of force.
The RCMP investigated the complaint and concluded that the members did not act inappropriately. In his interim report, the Vice-Chair concluded that the incident might have been avoided had the member effectively used techniques as set out in the RCMP Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM). The Vice-Chair also concluded that force used during the incident, including standing on the complainant's back and the use of a carotid control hold, amounted to excessive force. The Vice-Chair's recommendations included a recommendation for an apology and a recommendation that detachment members be cautioned about the dangers of applying unnecessary force to a suspect's back and that the carotid control hold instructional video used by the RCMP be updated.
The RCMP Commissioner did not agree that an apology should be given because, in his view, the man's demeanour and actions provoked the situation. However, the RCMP Commissioner did agree that the carotid control hold was improperly used and that some of the force used during the incident was excessive. The RCMP Commissioner directed that the carotid control training video be revised and that the dangers of applying pressure to the back of someone lying in the prone position be addressed in RCMP training.
The RCMP Commissioner expressed support for the public complaint process in a review case that involved allegations of excessive force. The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Commission and went further by expressing concern over the RCMP members' lack of cooperation with the public complaint process.
-
RCMP members were responding to a complaint of a loud house party. They encountered some of the partygoers outside the house. When the police attempted to search the backpack of the complainant's friend for alcohol, the complainant attempted to intervene and accused the police of having no authority to conduct a search. One of the RCMP members apparently told the complainant to "back off" but she refused. The complainant continued to get in the way; however, she was never violent or threatening. The police became intolerant of her actions and informed her that she was under arrest for being drunk in a public place. Two members took her to the ground and soon two other RCMP members came to assist. Ultimately, the complainant was pepper sprayed, handcuffed and taken to jail.
Among other allegations, the complainant accused the RCMP of having used improper force and having unlawfully arrested her. In his interim report, the Commission's Vice-Chair determined that the members had insufficient grounds to arrest the complainant for being drunk in a public place because she was not exhibiting signs of being a danger to herself or others, as required for such an arrest. Moreover, the Vice-Chair concluded that, even if the arrest had been lawful, the amount of force used on the complainant was clearly excessive. As a result, he recommended that the subject members be reminded of the principles embodied in the RCMP's conflict resolution models.
The RCMP Commissioner agreed with all findings in the interim report and supported the Vice-Chair's recommendation. In particular, he agreed that there was no justification for the level of force used against the complainant by these members.
Furthermore, the RCMP Commissioner made an additional comment regarding his members' lack of cooperation during the investigation of this public complaint. He was dismayed that none of the subject members provided a statement to the investigator. As a result, the RCMP Commissioner asked that the members be reminded that "such statements are their opportunity to explain their actions within the public complaint process, in addition to meeting their duty to be accountable."
The Commission receives numerous complaints each year regarding RCMP members conducting inadequate investigations of complaints made by members of the public. The following case illustrates the RCMP Commissioner's agreement with the Commission's position in a case that was investigated twice by the RCMP.
-
As reported in last year's annual report, a complainant alleged that RCMP members who came to his home in 1999 in response to a noise complaint had unlawfully entered his residence and arrested him. The RCMP member who investigated the complaint found that no misconduct had occurred and exonerated the members involved.
The complainant subsequently asked the Commission to review the RCMP's handling of the complaint. The Chair conducted a review and found that the RCMP members' entry, arrest, detention, and uses of force against the complainant were improper. The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Chair's findings.
The complainant submitted a further complaint alleging that the RCMP member who had investigated his previous allegations had conducted an inadequate and improper investigation. The RCMP investigated this additional complaint and concluded there was no evidence that the RCMP's previous investigation was inaccurate, inadequate or improper.
The complainant was not satisfied with the results of the RCMP's investigation and he requested a review of the RCMP's handling of the case. The Commission's review noted inaccuracies in the RCMP member's summaries of witness' statements; the improper use of leading questions; and most importantly, found that the investigating member's erroneous belief that the members' entry was lawful led to both a flawed investigation and flawed findings.
The Chair found that the investigation failed to meet proper standards and therefore the complainant's allegations that the investigation was inadequate and improper were substantiated. The Chair recommended that the investigating member receive operational guidance with respect to conducting proper investigations and regarding the lawful entry of a dwelling house. The RCMP Commissioner concurred with the Chair's findings and recommendations.
During 2003-2004, the Commission received 1,006 general enquiries. In its efforts to serve the public, Commission staff assisted citizens with satisfactory responses to 431 enquiries and provided requested documentation in response to an additional 413 enquiries. Seventy-five citizens were referred to other agencies, as their enquiries did not involve the RCMP. In the case of 78 enquiries, the citizens became unavailable due, for example, to relocation, or disconnection of telephone and the Commission Analyst could not follow up with him or her. The remaining nine enquiries are pending.
When a complaint is made directly to the Commission, the Western Region office receives it. Commission Analysts obtain the details of each complainant's concerns, formulate these complaints, and forward them to the RCMP. When a question arises relating to the Commission's jurisdiction, the Analyst consults the Commission's Legal Services Unit to ensure that the complaint can be properly processed. During 2003-2004, the Commission received 698 formal complaints.
Review Operations
| Interim Reports |
53 |
| Final Reports after
Commissioner's Notice |
50 |
| Final Reports after Review |
180 |
| Other Cases Concluded |
9 |
| TOTAL Number of
Reports Signed |
292 |
The Commission achieved three major goals in case management practices this year.
-
It dramatically increased the production of reports, more than doubling the number of files closed compared to the last two years.
-
Monthly production of reports was stabilized at a rate of over 30 reports a month.
-
Finally, the case inventory was reduced by 100 files.
This represents a significant first step in the Chair's commitment in last year's annual report to reduce the caseload within a three-year period. A significant amount of the credit for the increased rate of production in this fiscal year goes to the Vice-Chair, to whom the Chair assigned responsibilities for the production of review reports.
In the last quarter of this fiscal year, the Commission produced 100 reports. By the end of the fiscal year, the Commission more than doubled the number of reports produced from 133 in 2002-2003, to 290 in 2003-2004.
How did the Commission achieve such success?
-
First, by applying risk management principles, the Commission identified 100 lower risk files.
-
Second, senior management streamlined review procedures, eliminating several protocols that are appropriate for higher risk files but are not necessary for lower risk files.
-
Third, by implementing comprehensive tracking procedures to objectively measure productivity.
-
Fourth, management established clear guidelines for the amount of time required to complete each report.
-
Finally, in July 2003, the Commission implemented a pilot project called "Project 100," initiated by the Vice-Chair.
One of the case management strategies for the past year was to stabilize the monthly production of reports as a more sustainable method of achieving annual production targets. Compared to last year when production went up and down, in the last two quarters of this year, the Commission consistently produced about 33 reports monthly.
What was the impact of the increased production on the Chair's commitment to reduce the building caseload within three years? The Commission is on target. As the chart below illustrates, the Commission has reduced its inventory by 100 files from a high of 452 in June 2003, to 352 in March 2004.
Impact on Inventory
The Commission undertook a number of other case management initiatives in the past year. The Commission Chair, Vice-Chair, senior management and staff completed a "triage" of all files in the inventory. Using risk management principles, all files have been categorized at one of three levels ranging from lower to higher risk and the appropriate process for each file is being finalized. Each file was assigned an estimated time for completion. Priority files were identified by the Chair and added to a fast-track list. A Case Management Committee has been established to address report production issues on an ongoing basis.
This initiative forms a pillar of the Commission's commitment to implementing modern management practices.
The Government of Canada has made a clear commitment to implementing modern management practices throughout the federal public service. The Commission strongly believes in integrity, transparency, equality and value for money. That is why the senior management team, under the leadership of the Chair, developed a strategic plan to implement the principles of risk management, accountability, and transparency in reporting.
The management team defined priorities for action in June 2003. It set about implementing change to management practices and to the operations of the Commission. One of the main highlights of this plan involved changes in production in the review unit as outlined above.
The Chair and the senior management team plan to implement changes in the following areas:
-
the governance structure to ensure accountability;
-
the way the Commission sets strategic goals and how it makes decisions;
-
identifying and striving to meet stakeholders' expectations;
-
the way the Commission incorporates risk management; and
-
the level of detail incorporated into reporting on Commission activities.
To arrive at its strategic three-year plan, the Commission chose to utilize a management tool recommended by Treasury Board, known as the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). The MAF highlights government expectations of how departments and agencies should be managed and how priorities should be planned. The framework is focused on management and more specifically, on what managers and senior executives are expected to accomplish. By using the MAF, the Commission is confirming its commitment to modern comptrollership and is making use of risk management principles. For more details on this plan, please visit our web site at www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca and see the Report on Plans and Priorities document.
There were several communications initiatives that were completed over the last fiscal year. The Commission redesigned its web site to make it more informative and accessible while complying with government standards. The Commission's pamphlet was updated to better explain the public complaint process. The reporting in the Departmental Performance Report and the Report on Plans and Priorities was significantly improved and reflected the work the management team had done to implement modern management principles.
Additionally, there was a great deal of media interest in several of the Commission's activities in the last fiscal year, including the complaint into the deportation of Mr. Maher Arar; the report on the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City; the Federal Court case involving the Commission and the RCMP; and the legislation that governs the Commission. The Commission also responded to newspaper editors across the country on a wide variety of topics concerning issues of interest such as high-speed police pursuits and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness, among others.
These activities serve to increase the Commission's profile and help the Commission meet its stated goals of increasing Canadians' awareness of its role and mandate.
Head Office
Mailing Address:
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4
Telephone and Fax:
General Enquiries: 613-952-1471
Toll-free line: 1-800-267-6637
Complaints (toll-free): 1-800-665-6878
Fax: 613-952-8045
Western Region Office
Mailing Address:
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
7337 137 Street
Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia
V3W 1A4
Telephone and Fax:
General Enquiries: 604-501-4080, 604-501-4091
Complaints (toll-free): 1-800-665-6878
Fax: 604-501-4095
Web Address: http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/
Selected Commission reports are available on the web site.