Specified activity review of the RCMP’s handling of the public complaint process in "V" Division / Nunavut

Review period - April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
Subsection 45.34(1)

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP

Related Links

• News Release
  November 28, 2024
• ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᕕᓂᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓘᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ "V" ᐸᓖᓯᖃᕐᕕᒃ/ᓄᓇᕗᑦ
• RCMP Commissioner's Response
• Community-based Research [PDF]
• ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᖅᕕᐅᓲᓄᑦ ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ [PDF]
• ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᖅ
  August 4, 2022
• Tuhagakhamik Tunihijut
  August 4, 2022
• News Release
  August 4, 2022
• ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ
• Kangiqhidjutit
• Systemic Review Terms of Reference

Executive Summary

Ensuring a robust and tailored public complaint system for Nunavut ("V" Division) is essential for demonstrating transparency and accountability and relevance to the people of Nunavut, particularly Inuit. It can also foster increased public confidence in the police when communities can see that their complaints are taken seriously, and examined thoroughly and efficiently, in a culturally competent way. This is particularly critical for RCMP detachments in Nunavut where reconciliation efforts must be adapted to the communities they serve if they are to move forward in a meaningful way.

While there were a small number of public complaints in Nunavut over the review period (75 public complaints over 4 years), the public complaint investigations took too long to complete and over two-thirds of the investigations were deemed inadequate as they were missing required elements. This is particularly concerning given previous reports from the CRCC that highlighted similar issues in public complaint investigations and files.^{Footnote 1}

Making training on the public complaint process mandatory, updating and increasing knowledge of the National Policy, and implementing a robust policy compliance system will assist the RCMP in achieving these objectives. Importantly, "V" Division must develop its own public complaint policy that is adapted to the realities of policing in Nunavut. The RCMP is encouraged to work with community and Inuit-led groups, as well as the CRCC, to develop a culturally appropriate alternative complaint resolution process. It must also prioritize recruiting and retaining Inuit public complaint investigators and administrators to ensure detachments are positioned to best serve the community's needs, particularly the Inuit community.

Finally, the RCMP and the CRCC have work to do to increase awareness and accessibility of the public complaints system in a way that is relevant for Nunavut and Inuit. This should be done in consultation with Inuit organizations and improvements should be co-developed, taking into consideration Inuit traditional values, recommendations that have been made by successive Commissions and Inquiries, and guiding principles in the Inuit Nunangat Policy.

Purpose of this report

On July 21, 2022, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) initiated a systemic investigation into the RCMP's handling of the public complaint process in Nunavut ("V" Division).

The investigation addressed four areas^{Footnote 2}:

1. Policies, procedures, and guidelines—whether the documents that govern the RCMP's public complaint process in Nunavut are adequate, appropriate, sufficient, and clear
2. Training—whether the RCMP provides training on the public complaint process that is adequate, appropriate, sufficient and clear  
3. Compliance—whether the RCMP is complying with its policies, procedures, and guidelines, has the means to assess this compliance and whether it is doing so
4. Public perception—whether the people of Nunavut are aware of, and confident in, the RCMP public complaint process

This report presents the CRCC's investigative process, findings, and recommendations.

About the CRCC

The CRCC is an independent agency responsible for ensuring complaints against the RCMP are examined fairly and impartially. As set out in Parts VI and VII of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the mandate of the CRCC is to:

• receive complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members
• conduct reviews when individuals are not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of their complaints
• initiate complaints and investigations into RCMP conduct when it is in the public interest
• review specified RCMP activities ("systemic investigations")
• report findings and make recommendations
• promote public awareness of the complaint process

How the CRCC conducts systemic investigations

To ensure RCMP activities are carried out in accordance with legislation, regulations, or ministerial directions, the CRCC:

• identifies deficiencies and systemic issues by examining RCMP programs, activities, and operations
• reports whether policies, procedures and guidelines related to RCMP operations are adequate, appropriate, sufficient, and clear
• makes recommendations to improve or resolve these issues
• publishes the report and the RCMP's response to enhance RCMP accountability and transparency
• follows up on the implementation of previous recommendations

Reasons for investigating the RCMP's handling of the public complaint process in Nunavut:

A renewed examination of the public complaint system of the RCMP was overdue

The CRCC's last review of the handling of public complaints by the RCMP was in the form of submissions for the RCMP and Yukon government's, Review of Yukon's Police Force,  released in August 2010 that examined the Yukon's public complaint files from 2005 to 2010.^{Footnote 3} This review followed three previous annual reviews (2007 to 2009) on the public complaint system for all RCMP divisions across Canada: Review of the Record Project 2009 - Summary, Review of the RCMP's Public Complaint Records – 2008 and Review of the RCMP's Public Complaint Records – 2007.

Concerns about the effectiveness of the public complaint process in Nunavut

Since January 2019, the CRCC engaged with Nunavut government officials and non-governmental organizations from Nunavut, who raised concerns about policing in "V" Division. These concerns were echoed by the National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Inuit Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People, which addressed police oversight.

Issues with RCMP Complaints Resolution

After analyzing complaints in Nunavut between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2021, the CRCC noted that:

• some investigations took 3 to 5 years to complete
• some investigations were not initiated by the RCMP for nearly two years, resulting in some withdrawing their complaints
• nearly two-thirds of complaints were either withdrawn or informally resolved—this percentage was much higher than the national average

According to the National Guidebook—Public Complaints (current and 2017 version) the RCMP must dispose of complaints within 90 days of receiving them and must document any required extensions.

A robust and rigorous public complaint process is essential for police accountability

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's Handbook on police accountability, oversight and integrity stresses the importance of an effectively administered public complaint system.^{Footnote 4} When the system works, it:

• holds police accountable
• contributes to public confidence in the police
• improves the quality of policing by identifying problem areas to improve or individual officers that need guidance or training

Overview of the public complaint process

Responsibility for the public complaint system for the RCMP is divided between the CRCC and the RCMP. The RCMP is involved on both a national and divisional level.

RCMP National level

The RCMP's National Public Complaints Directorate (NPCD):

• is responsible for national policy and training for the public complaint process
• provides guidance to the divisional Professional Responsibility Units and Employee Management Relations Officers (EMRO).
• tracks public complaint investigations conducted by all divisions^{Footnote 5}

RCMP Divisional level

All RCMP divisions follow the same general approach. However, each division has some latitude in how it handles the public complaint process within its jurisdiction.

Nunavut

"V" Division assigns responsibilities for investigating public complaints in the following ways:

Responsibility	Role
Oversee the public complaint process in the division	Divisional Administration & Personnel Officer
Liaise with the NPCD Assign investigators Coordinate signing and sending the final investigation report to the NPCD for review	Employee and Management Relations Officer
Write and sign the final report explaining the findings of the investigation	District Advisory Non-Commissioned Officer or a detachment Commander

What the CRCC reviewed  

Documents and files

• all public complaint files in "V" Division during the review period (April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022)
• applicable national policy and guidebooks
• training courses and materials
• divisional standard operating procedures
• other relevant documents

Interviews

• RCMP members involved in the public complaint process in "V" Division
• NPCD members in Ottawa
• Nunavut individuals familiar with the RCMP public complaint process, including a territorial government official

The CRCC also contracted NVision Insight Group Inc. (NVision), a majority Indigenous-owned company, to conduct community-based research. NVision wrote a report of the findings, including recommendations on how to improve the public complaint system in Nunavut (Handling of Public Complaints by the RCMP in Nunavut).

Each section of findings and recommendations lists the specific materials reviewed.

For a full list of what was reviewed, see Appendix A.

Recommendations

Following the systemic investigation, the CRCC recommends that:

CRCC Findings, Recommendations and Analysis

Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines

The CRCC investigated the appropriateness, adequacy, sufficiency, and clarity of applicable policies, procedures, and guidelines for managing public complaints, how they are implemented, and any existent monitoring and review processes. Effective policies, procedures, and guidelines aid those involved in the public complaint process with consistent decision making, establish clear expectations, and minimize ambiguity of the public complaint investigation process.

The CRCC found three central issues and is making two recommendations.

What the CRCC reviewed

The CRCC reviewed the national public complaint policy framework, which includes:

• The RCMP National Policy^{Footnote 6} outlining the statutory requirements of Part VII of the RCMP Act relating to public complaints. In general, it states what is to be done and who is responsible (for example, who takes a complaint, who investigates, and who reports).
• The Guidebook that sets out courses of action, methods, and steps to be followed when conducting a public complaint investigation in accordance with policies, laws, and regulations (dated February 23, 2017).^{Footnote 7}

The CRCC also interviewed RCMP members and reviewed "V" Division's standard operating procedures, as well as NVision's interviews and report, and related documents.

Finding 1: National Policy is not appropriate or clear

Recommendation 1: The RCMP update the national public complaint policy

The CRCC found that the National Policy was adequate and sufficient to convey the essential elements of the public complaint system and consistent with the legislative requirements in the RCMP Act. However, it was not found to be appropriate, as it did not include a requirement to monitor or review the effectiveness of the policy nor did it include an appropriate means of tracking and assessing compliance. The National Policy also lacked clarity in some sections and duplicated the Guidebook.

The National Policy is unclear and too long

The objective of a policy is to set out the principles, values, and intent of expected outcomes to support consistent decision-making. CRCC identified the following issues with the National Policy:

• Some sections are difficult to understand. For example, Section 4.2 is long, does not provide clear guidance, and cites the RCMP Act multiple times. This requires members to go back and forth between the RCMP Act and the National Policy.^{Footnote 8}
• Numerous hyperlinks are not working. Some links did not function at all, and others were not consistent with the link target.
• The National Policy and the Guidebook do not always work well together. Some content is duplicated, which makes both documents unnecessarily long. Some instructions in the National Policy are too detailed and may be better suited for the Guidebook. The National Policy does not contain a direct link to the Guidebook, despite referencing the Guidebook in several sections.

There is no requirement to monitor or review policy compliance

The National Policy does not require oversight to monitor or review whether the policy is effective and implemented appropriately. It also does not specify the need to conduct a compliance review. An effective policy accountability system should include the following key elements:^{Footnote 9}

• Robust information gathering on policy outcomes and processes
• Ability to understand, process, and utilize the information based on internal analytical processes
• Internal information-sharing linking policy development to monitoring information
• Evaluation procedures that contribute to the development of new policies, procedures, and instructions

The National Policy does not reflect a GBA plus lens

Gender-based analysis plus is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups may experience policies, programs, and initiatives. According to Women and Gender Equality Canada:

  GBA Plus is a process for understanding who is impacted by the issue being addressed by the initiative; identifying how the initiative could be tailored to meet diverse needs of the people most impacted; and anticipating and mitigating any barriers to accessing or benefitting from the initiative.^{Footnote 10}

The National Policy does not require or encourage RCMP divisions to build on or adapt it to reflect the unique circumstances of the division in a divisional policy. Applying a GBA plus lens can assist divisions in ensuring the public complaint process is meaningful within their jurisdiction. While the National Policy is not suited to integrating and applying initiatives specific to a division, a requirement to create and adapt divisional policy could assist "V" Division in addressing initiatives such as:

• The Federal Inuit Nunangat Policy—This policy applies to all federal departments and agencies, and aims "… to create socio-economic and cultural equity between Inuit and other Canadians." The policy encourages an Inuit Nunangat approach to developing services that apply to the Inuit: "Inuit are the most knowledgeable about the issues affecting their communities, regions, and society and must, therefore, maintain an integral role and progressive responsibility in decision-making over matters that apply to Inuit and/or in Inuit Nunangat."
• The traditional Inuit values—These are based on customary Inuit knowledge and should be incorporated into processes impacting the Inuit community to ensure they are relevant. 

Finding 2: "V" Division does not have a divisional-level policy ^{Footnote 11}

Recommendation 2: "V" Division develop a divisional public complaint policy adapted to Nunavut's needs

"V" Division needs a divisional policy that considers how Nunavut is distinct from other divisions, including but not limited to its vast geographic area, large Inuit population, and detachments often being staffed by only two RCMP members.

The interviews NVision conducted highlighted the need for "V" Division to better tailor the public complaint process to the unique circumstances of Inuit. "The current model in the north mirrors that of the south, with the expectation that communities will work within that system."^{Footnote 12} See Public Awareness and Perceptions section for more information.

Divisional policy must capture both national requirements and specific regional needs

"V" Division should work with Inuit organizations to co-develop a divisional public complaint policy responsive to the needs of Inuit communities in Nunavut.

Among other things, a divisional policy could contain guidance on:

• Conducting a culturally appropriate informal resolution process. In NVision's interviews "It was noted that many complaints against officers were a by-product of individuals wanting to be heard, and that complaints were resolved more effectively when handled outside the formal process (i.e. in person meetings with the supervisor). The in-person meetings had more restorative results for both the complainants and the officer in question, as it helped put a face to the issue for both parties." A divisional policy could signify the RCMP's commitment to resolving complaints fairly and appropriately by integrating guiding principles that are culturally appropriate and responsive to the Inuit community.  
• Ensuring accessibility. A divisional policy could outline the use of interpreters and translators in the public complaint process when appropriate.

SOPs do not map to national policy

"V" Division is currently using standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide its process. SOPs are helpful in detailing specific responsibilities within the division but do not provide an overall picture of how the public complaint process should be implemented within "V" Division. They do not refer to the National Policy or the Guidebook and only provide prescriptive instructions of who does which task during the handling of public complaints without explaining why they need to be done. In general, the SOPs should be derived from divisional policy and should be compliant with the National Policy.

Finding 3: The RCMP made important improvements to the Guidebook

Overall, the Guidebook in use during the review period (Guidebook dated: February 23, 2017) was adequate and sufficient to convey the essential elements of the investigative process, however it was not appropriate or clear as it did not always work well with the National Policy.

The RCMP issued an updated Guidebook during the CRCC's investigation (December 2022) that was significantly improved over the previous version in use (February 2017), particularly with respect to clarity. The Guidebook:

• was clearer and used plainer language
• included an easy-to-read guide detailing the service standards involved in a public complaint investigation
• incorporated a CRCC recommendation from an earlier public complaint report mandating that public complaint investigators complete a conflict-of-interest form

Training on the Public Complaint Process

The CRCC investigated the quality of available training, and who received it. The CRCC found three central issues and is making two recommendations.

The changes below would enhance public complaint investigators' knowledge of the process and ensure those conducting public complaint investigations in Nunavut are culturally aware and sensitive to issues specific to Inuit.  

The CRCC review focused on the National Public Complaints training course^{Footnote 13}

Over the period of review, the RCMP had one National Public Complaints training course. It was designed to be offered in person over one day (eight hours). However, in practice, the NPCD would tailor it to the needs of the divisions, which meant it was often much less than a full day (i.e. only some modules of the training were provided depending on needs and time allotted by the division).

The first half of the course provides an overview of the public complaint process, including the steps and forms to be completed, the mandated requirements, and relevant law and policy for public complaints. The second half is focused on drafting the public complaint investigation report after a complaint investigation. Participants had to receive 80% on the required online assessment to pass, though they had an unlimited number of attempts.^{Footnote 14}

Finding 4: The training course complied with the RCMP Act but can be improved

The review found the National Public Complaints training course was:

• consistent with the RCMP Act (the training primarily referred to the RCMP Act)
• appropriate, sufficient, adequate, and clear to convey the essential elements of the public complaint system

Training can be improved

This course could provide additional detail and context related to public complaint outcomes, such as informal resolutions and withdrawals.

The course does not sufficiently explain the difference between withdrawals and informal resolutions

It is important for RCMP members to understand this distinction, as "V" Division frequently used withdrawals and informal resolutions to dispose of public complaints, however the CRCC found that this was often done without properly articulating the rationale, so it was difficult to know if the complaint had been coded properly as a withdrawal or an informal resolution.

In some cases, the language on the file suggested that commitments were made to encourage withdrawals. Interviewees suggested that there was a gap in the treatment of withdrawals and informal resolutions in that the latter requires the individual and RCMP subject member to reach an agreement. However, this does not apply to a detachment Commander who enters into an agreement with an individual. In these cases, the outcome was classified as a withdrawal.

Overall, the proportion of public complaints that were withdrawn over the review period was much higher in Nunavut compared to the rest of Canada (27% versus 11%). When a complaint is withdrawn, the allegations are not investigated or reviewed. Interestingly, when a complaint was investigated in Nunavut, the number of supported allegations was higher compared to the national average (12% versus 7%). While it is commendable that attempts were made to resolve complaints informally, including agreements with detachment commanders, it is incumbent upon the RCMP to ensure individuals understand the implications of withdrawing their complaint and provide them with the opportunity to go to an investigation.    

The in-person National Public Complaints course gives some instruction on informal resolutions and withdrawals. It would be helpful to reinforce the principles and intent of these options by including:

• additional scenarios that offer a better understanding of the process needed to engage these options
• discussions and instructions about when to use each
• implications of withdrawing a complaint
• the need to clearly articulate what transpired in the file

Finding 5: National Public Complaints training was not mandatory and was applied inconsistently

Recommendation 3: The RCMP make public complaints training mandatory for all investigators and administrators in the public complaint system

Training of public complaint investigators was inconsistent across Canada and within individual divisions. Over the review period for this investigation, the National Public Complaints course was not mandatory, was not offered on a regular schedule, and divisions were required to request it. The RCMP stated that only Divisions "M" (Yukon), "D" (Manitoba), and "E" (British Columbia) had completed it ("D" Division received training twice).

CRCC interviews indicated that the National Public Complaints course tended to be offered to senior management and public complaint administrators, not the investigators. In "V" Division:

• the course had not been administered to any public complaint investigators during the review period
• most people interviewed were not aware that this training course was available
• not one investigator had received any form of public complaints training
• only one administrative member had received training after seeking it on the recommendation of the Administration and Personnel Officer

Instead, investigators in "V" Division were trained ad hoc through:

• advice from more knowledgeable members
• seeking their own training with support from management
• reviewing source material such as the Guidebook

The lack of mandatory training might explain why "V" Division public complaint investigators reported in interviews that they were unfamiliar with the National Policy and relied solely on the Guidebook. Requiring public complaint investigators to be trained on both the National Policy and Guidebook will help ensure that public complaint investigations are compliant with policy and guidelines.

The RCMP made some training mandatory since the CRCC's review period

The RCMP recently made several improvements:

• New mandatory training for investigators—The RCMP developed a new online public complaint training course and released it in January 2023. The latest iteration of the Guidebook (December 2022) has made this training mandatory for public complaint investigators. The online training is shorter than the original in-person training but is organized in a similar way.
• Plans to spread awareness—The NPCD included a plan to have online training available and advertised as part of its business plan in the 2022/2023 fiscal year.
• A plan to make the course mandatory—The 2023/2024 business plan committed to adopting a strategy in which all those involved in the public complaint system would be required to take the course, not just investigators.

Administrators are still not required to take public complaint training

While there is now a requirement for investigators to complete the training, it is still not mandatory for public complaint administrators, according to the then-Acting Officer in Charge of the NPCD.  

It is concerning that the person conducting the investigation must be trained, but not the person supervising their work. To ensure administrators receive this public complaint training, it could be integrated into these existing courses:

• Executive Officers Development Program helps participants build knowledge and skills to enhance their transition into the executive ranks. The NPCD used to present information on the public complaints system during this program.
• Manager Development Program supports Corporals' transition to Sergeant ranks.
• Supervisor Development Program supports Constables' transition to Corporal ranks.

The CRCC investigation did not find evidence the Supervisor and Manager Development Programs include a public complaint element. However, one could be incorporated, given that Corporals (especially in the North) may act as detachment Commanders or the Commissioner's delegate by signing public complaint investigation reports.

Finding 6: "V" Division does not currently provide pre-deployment training

Recommendation 4: "V" Division provide pre-deployment training for members transferring to "V" Division

"V" Division members currently receive basic psychological assessments and training designed to help cope with life in remote postings. They do not receive training on cultural awareness, local knowledge, and the history of the RCMP in Nunavut. This type of training should be added at the earliest opportunity.

Cultural competency training needed

The NVision report concluded the lack of cultural competency training disadvantages both the RCMP and the community and may exacerbate power imbalances that already exist between the two (see Public Awareness and Perceptions section).^{Footnote 15}

A paper prepared for the RCMP also echoed a recommendation for an orientation program for RCMP members new to the north.^{Footnote 16} 

Inuit organizations raised the need for this training as well:

• The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national Inuit representative organization, have developed a work plan with the RCMP to address gaps and priorities in policing and build a more collaborative relationship. Among other initiatives, the ITK-RCMP work plan commits to, "the development and delivery of mandatory, ongoing, in-depth competency training for members of the RCMP who will be working with Inuit or Inuit communities."
• The Qikiqtani Truth Commission (QTC)Footnote 17 made a similar recommendation in their report: "To ensure that Inuit culture is better understood by government employees whose work affects the Inuit, the Governments of Nunavut and Canada, assisted by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, should develop and deliver cultural training to all such employees."^{Footnote 18} 
• The Yellowknife Women's Society recently released a report (April 2024) recommending enhancing and enforcing mandatory cultural competency training for RCMP members "… that is ongoing, in-person and community specific." 

The RCMP pre-deployment training program as of 2020 (paused at time of writing)

The RCMP contracted an Iqaluit based Inuit-owned centre of learning to develop a pre-deployment training program for members being posted to Nunavut.

The program consisted of 7 modules:

1. Reconciliation (1 day)
2. Division orientation (1 day)
3. An historical timeline (1 day)
4. Basic Inuktitut (1 day)
5. Resilience, self-care, and coping (1 day)
6. Initial critical incident response for the Nunavut context (1 day)
7. Mental health first aid (3 days)

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions curtailed the rollout of the training after only one course and the training has not restarted.^{Footnote 19} Interviews with members of "V" Division indicated that they are considering the feasibility of offering the training to transferring RCMP members and their spouses in an online format. While this training is for all members transferring to "V" Division, it will particularly benefit those involved in the public complaints system in better understanding the Inuit culture and the context and history of the RCMP in Nunavut.

Compliance

The CRCC investigated whether RCMP policies and procedures for handling public complaints were adequately complied with in Nunavut. The CRCC measured the 75 public complaints filed^{Footnote 20} (between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022) against specific criteria. Appendix B gives more information on the complaints (the nature and number of allegations in Nunavut and how this compares to Canada as a whole). The CRCC found seven central issues and is making one recommendation.

How the CRCC assessed compliance

Interviews with RCMP public complaint investigators in "V" Division revealed the Guidebook was the primary source they used to conduct public complaint investigations. Therefore, the CRCC assessed whether each public complaint file it reviewed met the 67 required criteria in the Guidebook instructions. Appendix B explains how criteria were selected.

The CRCC also assessed whether instructions in the following were being complied with:

• the RCMP-CRCC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
• the RCMP Audit of Policy Management – Phase Two

Finding 7: RCMP recordkeeping practices make compliance review difficult

Recommendation 5: The RCMP and "V" Division implement a system for public complaints to allow them to identify trends, evaluate policy compliance and training effectiveness, and determine if remedial action is needed

The CRCC experienced challenges in evaluating procedural compliance for public complaints

To obtain a complete picture of how complaint files were handled, the CRCC had to access, review, match, and cross-reference information from three different recordkeeping systems:

• Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS)—tracks complaint resolution or investigation
• Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS)—tracks relevant aspects of the complaint to the subject member
• Hard copy files—maintained in "V" Division

This process was time-consuming and overly complicated, making compliance review (internal or external) difficult.

Finding 8: Over two thirds of "V" Division public complaint files had inadequate sections

Of the public complaint files reviewed, 69.3% contained at least one inadequate section and 16% contained inadequacies in multiple sections (Table 1).^{Footnote 21} Table 2 shows where the inadequacies were most frequently found.

Finding 9: Letters, documentation, and reasons for delays were often inadequate

Many update letters to individuals who filed complaints did not meet the Guidebook standard

The 2017 Guidebook requires the RCMP "… provide a meaningful update as to the progress of the investigation, such as providing information as to what has been accomplished since the last update and what remains outstanding.^{Footnote 23} Many of the letters sent to update individuals on the status of their complaint were vague and provided little information.

Reasons for actions were not clearly documented, making it difficult to evaluate for reasonableness

Documentation on files often failed to provide sufficient details or a clear rationale for the actions taken, particularly for informal resolutions. It was often unclear what had transpired between the individual, the public complaint investigator, and/or the involved RCMP member that led to an informal resolution. This is despite the 2017 Guidebook requirement that, "The Complaint Intake Form must contain a detailed record of the manner by which each allegation was addressed and any remedial action."^{Footnote 24}

The Guidebook directs members involved to accept a written withdrawal and forward it to the NPCD who would then transmit the document to the CRCC. In practice, the limited notes on public complaint files and interviews revealed that members, usually supervisors, often engaged in advising individuals and occasionally undertaking to take action to satisfy the individual. However, absent the terms of the resolution being met (for example, a subject member does not consent) a complaint cannot be characterized as resolved informally under s. 45.56 of the RCMP Act. In such situations, complaints are often disposed of as a withdrawal, given there is no other formal mechanism in the RCMP Act under which to characterize this type of situation. This is a gap in the legislation.

Conflict of Interest forms missing

The CRCC noted several instances where there could have been a conflict of interest but did not find a completed conflict-of-interest form in the 75 files reviewed.

• While not mandatory at the time, two-member detachments would no doubt need a conflict-of-interest assessment if a complaint was made against one of the members.  Public complaint administrators in "V" Division stated that conflicts of interest were informally assessed when evaluating a member's suitability to investigate.
• This informal process is not documented anywhere in the complaint file.

Conflict-of-interest forms are now required by the Guidebook as of 2022.

Reasons for delays were not documented

The 2017 Guidebook required a monthly written rationale if a file exceeded 90 days.  A justification for a delay was rarely documented on file, despite some files being beyond the 90-day service standard.

Finding 10: Despite improvements, some investigations exceeded standard timelines

The CRCC assessed whether "V" Division completed public complaint investigation files in the 90-business-day standard noted in the RCMP-CRCC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Table 3 shows the average time taken to complete public complaint files, broken down by outcome.

"V" Division has significantly improved file completion times

Timeliness of investigation files had already improved since CRCC conducted its preliminary review as part of scoping for this investigation (CRCC's preliminary scoping review examined public complaint files between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2021). The NPCD sent representatives to "V" Division in late 2017 for an internal compliance review^{Footnote 25} that strengthened adherence to the prescribed public complaint process and improved file completion times.

Most files were completed on time

The files reviewed during this investigation were completed on average in 79 business days. Half of the files were completed in 35 business days or less. Note that these statistics include all files, including those withdrawn, terminated by the RCMP, or resolved informally.

Files that lead to a formal investigation and report exceed timelines by twice the standard

Not surprisingly, it took the longest to complete public complaints that ended with a public complaint investigation report. On average these files were completed in 194 business days, more than double the 90-day standard outlined in the RCMP-CRCC MOU. Two files however took longer than 365 days to complete.

Table 3: Time to complete complaint files based on outcome

File outcome	Average days to complete	Number of Cases
Formal Investigation and public complaint report completed	194	16
RCMP terminated the complaint for discretionary reasonsFootnote 26	56	5
RCMP terminated the complaint for non-discretionary reasonsFootnote 27	38	5
Informal Resolution	38	28
Withdrawals	53	21
All types of outcomes	79	75

Finding 11: The RCMP and "V" Division do not have a formal process to ensure public complaint investigations/files comply with the National Policy or the Guidebook

The CRCC investigation found both the NPCD, and "V" Division rely on informal oversight systems. The inadequacies found in the CRCC's review of public complaint files in "V" Division show these are insufficient.

An internal RCMP audit also raised concerns about informal compliance oversight

The CRCC investigation concurs with the RCMP Audit of Policy Management – Phase Two report's findings that:

• across all business lines, the RCMP had no formal process in place to ensure employee policy compliance with the National Policy or the Guidebook
• the RCMP "… relied on day-to-day management activities as a method to informally assess if policies were being followed"
• such an informal process cannot provide the required depth of information to make evidence-based decisions about training and policy changes/improvements.

The report, released in October of 2020, noted the importance of assessing compliance with policy:

"Policies are an important component of the RCMP as they provide guidance on health and safety, appropriate conduct, and regulatory requirements. As such, it is important to monitor compliance with policy to ensure that members and employees follow guidance and make consistent decisions. It is also essential to monitor policy in order to assess whether changes to policy are required." [Emphasis added]

The NPCD's role in assessing compliance at a national level is limited

The NPCD tracks public complaint files to verify timeliness and updates to both individuals who filed complaints and RCMP members who are the subject of the complaint. For investigations that end with a public complaint report, the NPCD also assesses whether:

• all allegations are fully addressed
• all requisite investigative steps have been taken
• rationales support the findings

However, in cases that end by withdrawal or informal resolution, there is limited NPCD intervention. The NPCD's role also does not include an assessment of whether the public complaint investigation or file complied with the National Policy or the Guidebook, which makes it difficult to identify problems and address them in a timely manner.

Compliance oversight in "V" Division is inconsistent

The CRCC learned that within "V" Division:

• managing public complaints is largely the responsibility of the Employee Management Relations Officer (EMRO), which is only one of their many duties
• each EMRO incorporates their own oversight system
• some EMROs discuss public complaints with members in their capacity as a subject matter expert or create tasks for themselves in the system to ensure the 90-day service standard is met

Oversight of the public complaint system should not depend on which officer occupies the position and should not simply be about ensuring deadlines are met. "V" Division should have a system in place to assess public complaint investigations and files for compliance with the National Policy and the Guidebook.

Public Awareness and Perceptions of the Public Complaint System

The CRCC investigated how aware the public was of the complaint system, the level of confidence and public trust in the process, and the effectiveness of existing strategies to mitigate current issues.

The CRCC found three central issues and is making three recommendations. Implementing these recommendations would advance reconciliation efforts with Inuit communities and bring much needed awareness, credibility, and integrity to the public complaint process in Nunavut.

The CRCC reviewed:

• NVision's report Handling of Public Complaints by the RCMP in Nunavut (November 30, 2022)
• The Federal Inuit Nunangat Policy
• Aaqigiarutiqarniq between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Inuit. (February 2022). A paper written for the RCMP, Indigenous Policing Services, National Headquarters.
• The Indigenous Languages Act—Section 8 supports "… providing Indigenous language programs and services in relation to education, health and the administration of justice."
• ITK-RCMP Work Plan
• The First Nations and Inuit Policing Program—a federal program administered by the Public Safety Canada
• The Yellowknife Women's Society report 

Recommendation 6: The RCMP and "V" Division RCMP collaborate with the CRCC to build awareness of the public complaint system and improve its accessibility.

Finding 12: Awareness and accessibility of the public complaint system is lacking

The public in Nunavut have limited knowledge of the public complaint system, despite past RCMP and CRCC efforts. The CRCC has provided pamphlets and posters translated into Inuktitut to each detachment in the territory describing the public complaint process and the role of the CRCC. While this is an important step forward in reaching out to communities, it is insufficient because people can only access this information if they go into the detachment.

Opportunities to improve public outreach

Key community partners and other members of the public who were interviewed^{Footnote 28} suggested feasible outreach strategies like advertising:

• on public radio, local television, social media (Facebook is widely used in Nunavut)
• within government buildings, arenas, and theatres

Building strong community bonds, particularly with Inuit communities, will also increase awareness between the community and the RCMP members who serve it.^{Footnote 29}

Hold workshops to build awareness of the public complaint system

Based on feedback, NVision suggested the RCMP and CRCC develop in-person workshops for community leaders and frontline workers to inform them about the public complaint process. They would cover information such as:

• what information is required to file a complaint,
• what happens once a complaint is submitted
• how the RCMP handles private information
• the role of the CRCC and the RCMP in the process

Recommendation 7: The RCMP collaborate with Inuit-led groups and community partners, as well as the CRCC to explore the development of a culturally appropriate alternative complaint resolution mechanism.

Recommendation 8: The RCMP collaborate with the CRCC to explore options to create an online portal allowing individuals to verify the status of their complaint.

Finding 13: The community does not have confidence in the public complaint system

It is not enough for the community to become aware of the public complaint system. Confidence and public trust are necessary for individuals to come forward with their complaints. The lack of confidence and trust appears to relate to the three issues below.

Filing a public complaint can be intimidating for community members

RCMP members and people in the community pointed out the public complaint process can be intimidating for individuals because:

• In small detachments, the RCMP member they are complaining about may also be the one providing them with the form
• Those encountering the police may also have a history of police interactions, which makes them more vulnerable
• People "are concerned about potential retaliation if they file a complaint against an officer," as noted in NVision's report
• Not all RCMP members have the necessary cultural training and awareness of the history of the RCMP in Nunavut.

The use of Inuit Special Constables as public complaint investigators or administrators may mitigate the issues identified above and increase the number of individuals willing to file a public complaint by offering a culturally appropriate resource for community members.  "Their [Inuit Special Constables] knowledge of the Inuit language, culture and community is vital in rebuilding trust and working towards reconciliation with Inuit. They act as cultural mediators ameliorating mistrust between the RCMP and Inuit."^{Footnote 30}  People may be more willing to come forward and speak about their complaint if an Inuit Special Constable was involved in the process.

In addition, a culturally appropriate alternative complaint resolution process could also improve confidence in the public complaint process.^{Footnote 31} Such a process could involve the community with the aim of resolving the complaint in a manner that enhances community trust in the RCMP. A culturally appropriate approach may be seen as more amiable and community-centred, less adversarial and individual-focused. It could also lessen the fear of retaliation for filing a complaint against an RCMP member.^{Footnote 32} This mechanism should be co-developed with key interested groups and tailored to the needs of the community.

The number of public complaints filed over the 4-year review period was low at just 75. It is well accepted that trust is pivotal to an effective public complaints system.^{Footnote 33} Only when people have confidence that their issue will be addressed fairly, impartially and in a culturally appropriate way will they avail themselves of the system. The low number of complaints in Nunavut over the four-year review period may be due to either a lack of trust in the system, which may particularly be the case for Inuit communities, or a lack of awareness, or both.^{Footnote 34}

A general failure to update individuals on the status of their complaints

This greatly affects the credibility of the process. NVision's research brought to light that individuals "sensed their complaints were 'falling on deaf ears' and described feeling disheartened not knowing the status of their complaint." It is important to establish a system to provide substantive and regular updates. This system must also address the reality that high-speed Internet and mobile cellular connectivity is not a given in many communities.^{Footnote 35}

NVision recommended an online portal so individuals can track the status of their complaints

An online portal would allow individuals to access their complaint information, see the status, and read updates for each complaint. This would allow them to access the information when they had a translator available and reliable access to the Internet. However, this cannot be a standalone solution. A reliable system will have to consider connectivity and accessibility issues.

"V" Division cannot currently respond to complaints in other languages

Most Nunavut residents speak Inuktut^{Footnote 36} as their first, only, or preferred language. The CRCC investigation and the NVision report found language barriers to be a core issue in the public complaint process because people:

• could not file a complaint in Inuktut (or their preferred language)
• were forced to depend on a translator and one is not always available
• were unable to follow through with complaints— "… community members were able to file the initial complaint with assistance from bilingual (Inuktut to English) friends or family members but ended up withdrawing their complaint due to their limited capacity to follow up on the status of their complaint (i.e. their interpreter was unavailable to provide ongoing support for them)."

More information needs to be available in Inuktut in various formats, and community members must be able to have access to services in Inuktut.^{Footnote 37} Additionally, the National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Inuit Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People speaks to the need for the federal government to enhance Inuktut capacity including in policing.

NVision recommended an Inuit local public complaints coordinator

NVision suggests having an Inuit member managing complaints who would:

• help community members file a complaint more easily
• build trust in the process 
• help adapt the process to better fit the needs of a specific community  

The Inuit Nunangat Policy encourages an integral role for Inuit

One of the Guiding Principles in the policy states that: "Inuit are the most knowledgeable about the issues affecting their communities, region, and society and must, therefore, maintain an integral role and progressive responsibility in decision-making over matters that apply to Inuit and/or in Inuit Nunangat." Confidence in the public complaint system and awareness could be enhanced through representation. This was highlighted in the National Inuit Action Plan (recommendation 6.12), which among other things, calls for legislative change to mandate an Inuk-member position at the CRCC.

Recommendation 9: The RCMP develop a sustainable plan to increase its recruitment and retention of Inuktut-speaking public complaint investigators and administrators.

Finding 14: There is insufficient Inuit representation in the RCMP

The limited number of Inuit members in "V" Division contributes to the language barrier, power imbalance, and lack of confidence from the community. Improving Inuit representation in the RCMP would:

• advance reconciliation efforts with Inuit communities
• provide cultural expertise to assist in adapting and bringing awareness of the public complaint process to specific Inuit communities
• comply with the National Inuit Action Plan, which states that Inuit representation is required at the working level
• demonstrate and promote shared respect for the history and importance of Inuktitut, and for building socio-economic and cultural equity between Inuit and other Canadians.^{Footnote 38}
• align with the:
  • ITK-RCMP Work Plan, which indicates that the RCMP should work with Inuit Land Claim Organizations to revise its recruitment and retention strategies for Inuit staff members
  • paper prepared for the RCMP which recommends an Inuit employment plan strategy^{Footnote 39}
  • recommendation made in the Yellowknife Women's Society report to recruit Indigenous people into the RCMP

Recruiting and retaining Inuktut-speaking members needs to be a priority

The CRCC investigation found that non-Inuktut speaking members need to find their own workarounds to serve communities well. Some often need to ask off-duty RCMP members or front-line personnel conversant in Inuktitut (e.g. health service providers) for help. This problem is exacerbated as:

• the number of Inuit RCMP members has been steadily decreasing^{Footnote 40}
• there is no incentive (e.g. bilingual bonus) for those who do speak Inuktut to assist in these cases

The NVision report identified the challenges posed to individuals who must communicate with public complaint investigators or complaint takers in a language other than their preferred language. Recruiting and retaining public complaint investigators and administrators who speak Inuktitut is key to increasing accessibility of the public complaint system in Nunavut.

An interview with the current "V" Division Commanding Officer, who took command in 2022, revealed that under his predecessor, "V" Division had commenced a recruitment initiative designed to facilitate the hiring of Inuit members and employees. The initiative is in response to the Public Safety Minister's mandate letter calling on the RCMP to hire more Inuit.^{Footnote 41} The strategy employed includes:

• identifying suitable candidates
• enhancing eligibility by working with outside agencies to provide language training, access to computers and high-speed internet
• mentoring and coaching by the recruitment section
• arranging for oral exams to be proctored by an RCMP member

"V" Division could consider other initiatives to bolster the recruitment and retention of Inuit members and employees

The investigation revealed some suggestions:

• Use Inuit community officers and Inuit Special Constables—An Interview with a government representative mentioned a joint initiative, funded through the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, to place Inuit community officers in most Nunavut detachments. The Inuit community officers would not be performing general duty policing but would serve as liaisons between the communities and the local detachments. However, an option would be to also have them assist with or lead public complaint investigations, particularly those involving Inuit individuals.
• Reintroduce Inuktut language incentives—During CRCC interviews, the RCMP administration indicated that bilingual bonuses could only apply to one of Canada's two official languages. However, the interviews also revealed that, at one time, members did receive a bonus for speaking Inuktut. Therefore, the RCMP could work with the territorial government to explore options of a cost-sharing agreement that would provide bonuses to Inuktut-speaking members. These incentives would be consistent with a recommendation made in a paper prepared for the RCMP on the RCMP and the Inuit.^{Footnote 42}

Conclusion

The CRCC's investigation found that changes are required to improve the public complaint process in Nunavut. The recommendations made in this report aim to make the process more culturally appropriate, more accessible, and better known to the public, with the goal of enhancing trust in the RCMP public complaint process and improve accountability.

Appendix A—What the CRCC reviewed  

The CRCC investigated all public complaint files in "V" Division during the period under review (April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022). It also reviewed:

Policies, procedures, and guidelines

• Applicable national public complaint policy (referred to as National Policy)
• The National Guidebook – Public Complaints dated February 23, 2017 (referred to as the Guidebook)
• "V" Division standard operating procedures for public complaints
• Various reference materials including
• Police Organization and Training
• 10 Step Evaluation for Training and Performance Improvement
• Police Victim and Witness Interviewing in a Northern Canadian Territory: Measuring Perceptions and Practice

Training

• Public complaint training
• Pre-deployment to the North training

Interviews

Interviews with RCMP members involved in the public complaint process in "V" Division:

• Commanding Officer
• Administration and Personnel Officer
• Emergency and Management Relations Officer
• District Advisory Non-Commissioned Officer
• Line Officers
• Detachment commanders
• Investigators

 Interviews in Ottawa at the National Public Complaints Directorate:

• Officer-in Charge
• Manager Reviews
• Analysts

Interviews with individuals from Nunavut familiar with the RCMP public complaint process, including a territorial government official.

The CRCC also contracted NVision Insight Group Inc. (NVision), a majority Indigenous-owned company, to conduct community engagement. NVision identified and interviewed several partners in Nunavut based on their proximity to the public complaint process including officials from the territorial government, representatives from Inuit organizations, community front-line workers, and former RCMP members in the north. A report of the research findings, including recommendations on how to improve the public complaints system in Nunavut, was provided to the CRCC (Handling of Public Complaints by the RCMP in Nunavut, November 30, 2022).

Appendix B—More information on compliance

How the CRCC identified the evaluating criteria

The CRCC used the Guidebook to identify 83 criteria related to public complaint investigations (these were contained in the nine sections listed below). Each criterion then received a designated level of importance based on the wording in the Guidebook. The CRCC determined the adequacy of a public complaint file based on the assessment of the required (must do something) criteria only. In other words, highly recommended or recommended criteria did not play a role in determining the adequacy of a file. This resulted in 67 required steps out of the 83 criteria in the Guidebook.

Nine sections of the guidebook

1. Code of Conduct
2. Complaint Intake and Assessment
3. CRCC Review
4. Formal Investigation
5. Informal Resolution
6. Refusals and Terminations
7. Remedial Action
8. Serious Incident
9. Withdrawal

How the CRCC determined level of importance based on wording

The nature and number of allegations in Nunavut

A total of 75 public complaint files were reviewed over the period April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022. The most common complaint allegations made in "V" Division complaint files reviewed, related to improper attitude followed by neglect of duty, improper use of force, and improper arrest. These top four complaint allegations in Nunavut are similar to complaints against the RCMP as a whole, however improper use of force has a higher proportion of total allegations in Nunavut compared to Canada (22% vs 10%) and neglect of duty has a lower proportion of total allegations in Nunavut compared to Canada (26% vs 43%). 

Top Four Allegation Categories for Nunavut and Canada

In terms of allegation outcomes, the proportion of withdrawals is much higher in Nunavut compared to Canada (27% vs 11%), however the proportion of supported allegations is higher in Nunavut compared to Canada (12% vs 7%).

Allegation Outcomes for Nunavut and Canada

Outcome	Nunavut # Allegations	Nunavut % of Total Allegations	Canada % of Total Allegations
Supported	20	12%	7%
Unsupported	41	24%	54%
Informal	56	32%	26%
Terminated	9	5%	3%
Withdrawn	47	27%	11%