Audit of Personnel Security

Vetted Report

July 2016

Access to Information

This report has been reviewed in consideration of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Acts. The asterisks [***] appear where information has been removed; published information is UNCLASSIFIED.

Table of contents

1. Acronyms and abbreviations
2. Executive summary
3. Management's response to the audit
4. 1. Background
5. 2. Objective, scope, methodology statement of conformance
   • 2.1 Objective
   • 2.2 Scope
   • 2.3 Methodology
   • 2.4 Statement of conformance
6. 3. Audit findings
   • 3.1 Program activities since 2011
   • 3.2 Potential process efficiencies
7. 4. Conclusion
8. 5. Recommendations
9. Appendix A – Audit objective and criteria
10. Appendix B – Screening process overview
11. Appendix C – File review detailed results

Acronyms and abbreviations

CIO

Chief Information Officer

CO

Commanding Officer

DDSM

Directive on Departmental Security Management

DG

Director General

DSB

Departmental Security Branch

DSO

Departmental Security Officer

DSP

Departmental Security Plan

DSS

Departmental Security Section

FTE

Full-Time Equivalent

NARMS

National Administrative Records Management System

NHQ

National Headquarters

PGS

Policy on Government Security

RBAP

Risk-Based Audit Plan

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

RM

Regular Member

RRS

RCMP Reliability Status

RSM

RCMP Security Manual

SEC

Senior Executive Committee

SPS

Specialized Policing Services

SSS

Security Screening Standard

TBS

Treasury Board Secretariat

Executive summary

As Canada's national police force, the RCMP is responsible for ensuring the integrity of its nearly 30,000 employees, 25,000 contractors and more than 17,000 volunteers in over 700 communities across Canada. This is accomplished by ensuring that these individuals are appropriately security screened prior to their association with the Force, and through periodic security screening updates thereafter.

In recent years, the Departmental Security Program has experienced challenges in meeting service level expectations as a result of funding pressures combined with increasing demand as a result of the implementation of Shared Services Canada, the new Parliamentary Protective Service and the National Recruiting Initiative to increase Regular Member recruiting. In an effort to enhance the efficiency of the security screening program and ensure operational requirements are met, DSB has identified and implemented a number of process modifications and is currently investigating others.

The 2011 Audit of Personnel Security found that the personnel security screening process within the RCMP was not sufficiently rigorous. It also found that the reporting structure in place at that time coupled with the lack of monitoring and oversight of the process made it difficult to assess whether the overall process was meeting its intended objectives. ***

The current audit found that while progress has been made on certain issues such as: enhancing the rigour of the process; defining and communication risk tolerances; and implementing a number of process efficiencies, risks and gaps continue to exist. *** Improvements in these areas are necessary to further facilitate improvements to the effective and efficient delivery of the security screening program.

The audit found that there were a number of challenges with respect to the ***. DSB is aware of these challenges and is taking measures to improve the capture of performance information. Notwithstanding the challenges relating to the ***, through our file review and analysis of available program information we were able to identify a number of potential opportunities and mechanisms that could improve the efficiency of the process.

The management response included in this report demonstrates the commitment from senior management to address the audit findings and recommendations. A detailed management action plan is currently being developed. Once approved, RCMP Internal Audit will monitor the implementation of the management action plan and undertake a follow-up audit if warranted.

Management's response to the audit

Specialized Policing Services (SPS) agrees with the recommendations of the Audit of Personnel Security. *** Maximizing efficiencies and standardizing processes as well as implementing a national framework for oversight and performance measurement are also seen as key components for successful program delivery.

To that end, and prior to the completion of the audit, SPS has undertaken significant steps to address program oversight, with particular emphasis on standardizing processes to improve national governance. SPS, however, acknowledges there is still much work to be done. Many of the components identified in the audit are well known and were prioritized in the RCMP Departmental Security Plan (DSP) for 2015-2018, which SPS started implementing along with the information technology (IT) required to support them. Additionally, SPS will continue working with key stakeholders and the Senior Executive Committee to further define program costing and implement a funding model commensurate with organizational priorities, risk tolerance and capacity.

SPS will carry on taking action on the recommendations over the next two fiscal years, as indicated in the DSP. A detailed management action plan which addresses the report recommendations will be developed for review by the Departmental Audit Committee prior to the next Committee meeting.

Deputy Commissioner Peter Henschel
Specialized Policing Services

1. Background

As Canada's national police force, the RCMP is responsible for ensuring the integrity of its nearly 30,000 employees, 25,000 contractors and more than 17,000 volunteers in over 700 communities across Canada. This is accomplished by ensuring that these individuals are appropriately security screened prior to their association with the Force, and through periodic security screening updates thereafter.

The security screening process for the RCMP is governed by the requirements prescribed in the Treasury Board Policy on Government Security (PGS), the Directive on Departmental Security Management (DDSM), and as of October 20, 2014 the Treasury Board Standard on Security Screening (the standard) which replaced the Personnel Security Standard which had been in effect since June 9, 1994. The new standard introduced enhanced security screening activities for departments and organizations that are involved in or directly support security and intelligence functions. Appendix B to the standard, Security Screening Model and Criteria, breaks down the standard and enhanced screening activities introducing open source inquires for all enhanced security clearances and polygraph examinations for enhanced Top Secret clearances. The new standard included a 36 month implementation period, meaning departments and organizations do not have to be fully compliant until October 2017. The RCMP has further communicated throughout the force the internal security screening policy and procedures in the RCMP Security Manual (security manual).

The standard describes security screening as being at the core of the Policy on Government Security and as a fundamental practice that establishes and maintains a foundation of trust within government, between government and Canadians, and between Canada and other countries.

The PGS assigns accountability for the effective implementation and governance of security and identity management within the RCMP to the Commissioner as deputy head. It requires that the Commissioner appoint a departmental security officer (DSO) to be functionally responsible for the management of the departmental security program. Within the RCMP the Director General of the Departmental Security Branch (DSB) holds this appointment.

The DDSM's objective is to achieve efficient, effective and accountable management of security within departments. It holds that Departmental security activities must be centrally coordinated and systematically woven into day-to-day operations to ensure that individuals, information, assets and services are safeguarded. The DDSM defines the roles and responsibilities of departmental employees who support deputy heads in the management of departmental security.

The RCMP's Personnel Security Program ensures the reliability and security of individuals accessing its information systems, data and physical assets. This is achieved through the RCMP security screening process, which supports the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of a RCMP Reliability Status (RRS) and, if required by the position, a Secret or Top Secret security clearance.

The RCMP's security screening is delivered and supported across Canada by DSB and through four (4) Departmental Security Sections (DSSs) located in Vancouver, Regina, Halifax and Ottawa. The security screening process involves multiple steps such as conducting education and employment verification, credit checks, criminal record checks, interviews and field investigations. When a RRS or security clearance expires, an update is required to extend its validity. An overview of the process is provided in Appendix B.

In 2014, DSB reported that the backlog of security clearance updates continued to grow and that time delays associated with obtaining clearances for new hires, secondments and contingent workers (contractors) was creating significant pressures for hiring managers across the RCMP. These time delays: impact operations and partnership development; may result in the lapse of funding related to contracts; could incur penalties to the RCMP for not respecting contracting terms and conditions; and could lead to qualified potential employees accepting employment outside the Force.

In a 2015 business case entitled "Transforming the National Departmental Security Program", DSB reported that average times to complete a reliability screening varied significantly by Division with the range being 17 to 52 weeks. This is in contrast to DSB's stated desired service standard of 8 to 10 weeks. In the business case, DSB reported that personnel security screening is under significant pressure as a result of increasing volumes due to consolidation of Government of Canada services including information technology (IT) and pay and increased recruitment of RCMP Regular Members from 320 to 960 cadets per year, since 2014; and due to a greater focus on security in response to modern threats.

In 2011, RCMP Internal Audit conducted an audit of Personnel Security. The results indicated that the rigour of the personnel security process needed improvement; there was insufficient oversight and monitoring over the screening process; and that Senior Executives' risk tolerances had not been sufficiently communicated or understood.

In April 2014, the Commissioner approved an audit of Personnel Security as part of the 2014-17 Risk-Based Audit Plan (RBAP). The RBAP indicated that the engagement was also to include follow-up work to assess the implementation of the Management Action Plan developed in response to the recommendations made in the 2011 Audit of Personnel Security.

2. Objective, scope, methodology and statement of conformance

2.1 Objective

The objective of this audit engagement was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes for providing personnel security screening to ensure they are: consistent with the Policy on Government Security and Security Screening Standard; streamlined; and timely.

2.2 Scope

The engagement examined the personnel security screening processes and activities for Regular Members (RM), Civilian Members, Public Servants, and Contractors at Headquarters and at regional Departmental Security Sections (DSSs). The engagement included an independent review of the security screening processes, including the process reviews and process mapping exercises that have been undertaken by the Departmental Security Branch, with a view to identifying opportunities and mechanisms to further improve efficiency without unduly increasing risk to the Force and while ensuring compliance with the Policy on Government Security and the Security Screening Standard.

The engagement also included sufficient work to assess and report on the current status of the Management Action Plan associated with the 2011 Personnel Security Audit.

2.3 Methodology

Planning for the audit was completed in July 2015. In this phase, the audit team conducted interviews, process walkthroughs and examined relevant policies, directives, procedures and results of previous reviews.

Sources used to develop audit criteria include Treasury Board and RCMP policies. The audit objective and criteria are available in Appendix A.

The examination phase, which concluded in March 2016, employed various auditing techniques including: interviews, documentation reviews, analysis, physical observation and file reviews. Site visits were conducted at all four Departmental Security Sections and at the Departmental Security Branch. Upon completion of the examination phase, the audit team held meetings to validate findings with personnel and debriefed senior management of the relevant findings.

2.4 Statement of conformance

The audit engagement conforms with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

3. Audit findings

The 2011 Audit of Personnel Security found that the personnel security screening process within the RCMP ***. It also found that the reporting structure in place at that time coupled with the lack of monitoring and oversight of the process made it difficult to assess whether the overall process was meeting its intended objectives. ***

Management accepted the audit findings and recommendations and committed to conducting a review to improve the rigour of the security screening process. This review was to include consultations to identify an appropriate reporting structure. With respect to risk tolerances, management committed to defining and communicating its risk tolerances through the RCMP's Senior Executive Committee. ***

Accordingly, we expected that this audit would find that improvements had been made to improve the overall rigour and efficiency of the security screening process. Specifically, we expected that:

• Security files would be compliant with both the requirements of the standard and the security manual;
• Risks to the program would be appropriately managed, and management's risk tolerances would be communicated and understood throughout the organization;
• An appropriate reporting structure would have been identified and implemented;
• Financial information on the costs of the program would be available and would inform resource allocation decisions;
• Performance of the program would be measured and monitored; enabling program enhancements where appropriate; and
• The results of the improved governance framework would enable the streamlining of the program across the organization with identified efficiencies shared and incorporated into program policies and procedures.

Through our audit work, which included interviews, documentation reviews, analysis, physical observation and file reviews we found that since the 2011 audit, while a number of process enhancements have been made risks and gaps continue to exist, notably the availability of reliable performance and resource information. In addition, based on our analysis and file review, we also found that additional opportunities exist to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the process.

3.1 Program Activities Since 2011

The Policy on Government Security (PGS) and the Standard on Security Screening (the standard) require that: governance structures, mechanisms and resources are in place to ensure effective and efficient management of security at both a departmental and government-wide level; and that security screening services are effective and efficient, and meet the needs of departments and agencies, and of the Government of Canada as a whole.

The Departmental Security Program has experienced challenges in meeting service level expectations as a result of funding pressures combined with increasing demand as a result of the implementation of Shared Services Canada, the new Parliamentary Protective Service and the National Recruiting Initiative to increase RM recruiting. DSB reported in a 2015 business case that average times to complete a reliability screening varied significantly by Division with the range being 17 to 52 weeks. As reported by DSB and the four DSSs, the total demand for security clearances has increased from approximately 21,000 in 2013 to 25,121 in 2014. Volume in 2015 was consistent with 2014, with 25,258 clearances being requested^{Footnote 1}. During this period, resources allocated to the security screening program have reportedly remained consistent with respect to indeterminate full-time equivalents (FTE) - approximately 125 for both 2014 and 2015. However, taking into account the use of overtime, casual, and term employees, total resources allocated to the program have reportedly increased from approximately 172 FTE in 2014 to 189 FTE in 2015 (Figure 1)^{Footnote 2}.

DSB has made progress on certain issues identified by IAER's 2011 Audit of Personnel Security. In addition to enhancing the rigour in the screening process and defining and communicating risk tolerances through RCMP's Senior Executive Committee, DSB has identified and implemented a number of process efficiencies.

Rigour of screening process – compliance to policy requirements

The detailed security screening requirements and procedures to be followed within the RCMP align with the requirements of the Policy on Government Security (PGS) and the Standard on Security Screening (the standard) and are contained in the RCMP Security Manual (security manual).

We found that DSS personnel at all levels were aware of the requirements of the standard and security manual and many of the tools used locally, such as checklists, were intended to ensure compliance with the standard and security manual.

*** DSSs, as part of the audit's file review testing, a sample of 243 files for various types of clearances was *** compliant with both the requirements of the standard and the security manual, with all the required procedures having been completed. This represents a significant improvement from the findings of the 2011 audit relating to process compliance.

As previously mentioned, the Treasury Board Standard on Security Screening has introduced enhanced security screening requirements regarding the use of open source inquiries and polygraphs, that will become effective in October 2017. ***

Departmental Security Plan and Definition and Communication of Risk Tolerances

The PGS and DDSM outline the requirement for departments to conduct a continuous assessment of security risks, threats and vulnerabilities and to implement appropriate internal controls to ensure continuous adaptation to the changing needs of the department and the operating environment. The 2011 audit recommended that Senior Executives' risk tolerance levels should be defined and communicated to ensure clear understanding and consistent application throughout the program.

In July 2015, the Commissioner approved the RCMP's first 3-year Departmental Security Plan (DSP). The plan describes security governance within the RCMP and also defines the roles and responsibilities for the Commissioner, DSO, and Departmental Security Sections (DSSs) among others. The DSP, which aligns with the requirements in the TB policies, assigns the DSO with the functional authority over the Departmental Security Program. Specifically included as part of the DSO's responsibilities is the implementation of security controls and processes for the systematic management of security risks to the Department and any activities necessary to achieve the objectives and priorities of the DSP.

We found that DSB conducted a thorough assessment of security risks facing the RCMP (including risks specific to the security screening program) as part of developing the recent DSP. DSB is using the results of this assessment to guide its priorities for the next three years acknowledging that the risks will continue to evolve.

As an additional activity relating to the 2011 recommendation, DSB consulted both externally and internally to identify security risk categories and developed a decision-making tool entitled RCMP Security Risk Categories: Indicators, Mitigating Factors & Tolerances. This tool is intended as a decision making guide for personnel security analysts, investigators, risk managers and adjudicators, to ensure consistent application of risk factors in the issuance and renewal of RCMP Reliability Status and security clearances. The risk indicators, mitigating factors and organizational risk tolerances within the document are the result of extensive research and consultations with national and international partner organizations and analysis of over one thousand clearance files with adverse information.

As of April 2016, the guide was still in draft form and was only approved as a tool to be used for RM security clearances. Notwithstanding the fact that judgement will always be a factor in making security clearance decisions, once the guide has been fully approved and disseminated more broadly, DSB expects it to provide a clearer understanding of senior management's risk tolerance and provide sufficient guidance to enable the DSSs to assess risk in a more consistent manner.

Efficiencies Identified and Implemented by DSB

In its assessment of activities that could be risk-managed in an effort to enhance the efficiency of the security screening program, DSB has identified and implemented process modifications relating to: risk-managed appointments, security level reductions, and other process efficiencies.

***

The standard states that in all cases, individuals must be officially granted the required reliability status, secret security clearance, top secret security clearance, site access status or site access clearance before they are assigned duties or assigned to a position, and/or before they are granted access to sensitive information, assets or facilities.

***

DSB interim measures to increase process efficiency

In June 2014, based on recommendations from DSB, the RCMP's Senior Executive Committee approved a number of interim measures in an effort to alleviate pressures on the security screening process and to address the increased wait times for non-RM security screening requests. The objective of the interim measures was to standardize and streamline screening requirements for specific cases and thereby reduce screening processing time pending the implementation of a longer-term strategy for departmental security. Some of these measures included:

• Reducing the number of Top Secret positions;
• Rationalizing screening requirements for short-term contractors;
• Expediting reactivations, granting temporary access; and
• Expediting and risk managing secondments;

Personnel security managers commented that while the intent of interim measures is to reduce turnaround times, to a large degree, their impact on efficiency cannot be demonstrated as mechanisms were not put in place to track the use of interim measures.

While progress has been made since the 2011 audit in enhancing the security screening program, risks and gaps remain relating to functional authority and organization structure, oversight and monitoring and performance measurement practices. Enhancements in these areas are necessary to further facilitate improvements to the effective and efficient delivery of the security screening program.

Functional Authority and Organizational Structure

As previously mentioned, the RCMP's DSP identifies the implementation of security controls and processes for the systematic management of security risks as part of the DSO's responsibilities. As part of our examination we found that the DSO has encountered obstacles in carrying out these roles and responsibilities as a result of ***.

One of the issues raised during the current audit was that, in some cases, the DSO's ability to manage the program has been challenged by the fact that personnel security screening is delivered through four Departmental Security Sections (DSS) located in Vancouver, Regina, Ottawa, and Halifax. While the DSS's report functionally to the DSO for all security related matters, they report administratively, on a day-to-day basis, to local Divisional Management, which also provides the majority of the DSS's funding.

In the 2011 audit, this ***.

Through our site visit interviews we determined that there is ***: establish program priorities; reallocate resources; implement standards and processes; and establish performance expectations for the DSSs despite the fact that policy assigns functional authority to the DSO.

While some initiatives have been undertaken to address governance issues, as of April 2016, ***. Clearly defining and communicating the DSO's authority to influence resource allocation and set program priorities would enable more effective management of the program.

Financial Information and Resource Allocation

The current funding model for the personnel security screening program is complex and information regarding the full costs of the program is limited. The program is not centrally funded; rather, DSSs receive the majority of their funding from the Division in which they are located. In some cases, DSSs have obtained additional funding from the Divisions they serve (but are not located in) or from DSB to address national priorities such as screenings for the recruitment of Regular Members. In a 2015 business case, DSB reported that nationally, approximately 14% of FTEs in the security program are funded by incremental or temporary funding. This has created staffing challenges and a reliance on term and/or casual employees. Some DSSs have entered into financial arrangements with client groups to have the client temporarily fund positions within the DSS which are then dedicated to working on security screenings for that client group. Although this may address immediate requirements, it results in ongoing personnel turnover and significant effort to obtain and train temporary employees, who may seek other more permanent positions when opportunities present themselves.

*** covering the costs of the field investigation portion of the security screening process were observed. ***. Resources allocated to the security screening program have reportedly remained consistent with respect to indeterminate full-time equivalents (FTE) - approximately 125 for both 2014 and 2015. However, taking into account the use of overtime, casual, and term employees, total resources allocated to the program have reportedly increased from approximately 172 FTE in 2014 to 189 FTE in 2015 (Figure 1).

*** along with ad hoc arrangements for securing funds from client groups, reduce the accuracy and completeness of costing information. Without complete and accurate costing information and a secure source of funding, it is difficult for the program to confirm resource requirements or to strategically reallocate funds within the program to address increased demand or new requirements such as the open sources inquiries and polygraph examination introduced in the October 2014 Standard on Security Screening. There is also a risk that opportunities for efficiencies may be lost, as the DSO does not have sufficient information to propose strategic resource reallocation decisions.

Enhanced, complete information regarding program costs would allow for more informed resource allocation, and would aid in determining long-term funding requirements.

Monitoring and Performance Measurement

The TB PGS requires deputy heads to ensure that periodic reviews are conducted to assess the effectiveness of the security screening program. The DDSM assigns to the DSO the responsibilities of measuring performance on an ongoing basis to ensure that residual risk levels are acceptable. In addition, the standard requires the DSO to monitor compliance with the standard and the effectiveness of security procedures and practices.

***. In response to the audit findings, management committed to establishing national performance measures and ongoing monitoring of national processing times.

We found that at the completion of our examination phase the policy centre had not defined specific performance information requirements and DSSs were not required to capture and report such information. ***.

During our site visits in our examination phase, we attempted to obtain performance information from the individual DSSs; however, we found that DSSs capture performance measures differently and for their own purposes. ***. For example not all DSSs have an intake function which records the receipt of new requests for a clearance which can also conduct an initial review of applications for completeness. Further one DSS divided security screening requests by client groups while another distributed security screening requests to security screening analysts by employee category. ***.

Departmental Security management has acknowledged the continuing gap in this area and as a recent enhancement to the program, during the reporting phase of this audit the DSB policy centre defined and communicated performance information requirements to the four DSSs. In addition, the policy centre has commenced developing national performance standards and tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) for each component of the departmental security program, including the Departmental Personnel Security Screening program as part of the recently approved DSP.

***

As a longer term solution, we were informed by DSB that the RCMP Chief Information Officer (CIO) has identified MS Dynamics as the platform for all replacement case management systems. The CIO Branch is currently piloting MS Dynamics within the RCMP ***. DSB has considered alternative interim solutions; however, NARMS is the only interim case management system supported by the CIO.

3.2 Potential Process Efficiencies

In addition to assessing compliance with the PGS and the standard, an element of the audit objective was to identify potential opportunities and mechanisms to further improve process efficiency without unduly increasing risk to the RCMP. In order to enable a meaningful detailed analysis of the process, we had expected to find the processes and practices amongst DSSs to be consistent and that reliable performance measurement data, including files with sufficient detail to allow for the clear identification of both processing times associated with each step in the screening process and bottlenecks as well as backlog information would be available. As mentioned in the previous section, ***. DSB is aware of these challenges and is taking measures to improve the capture of performance information.

Notwithstanding the challenges relating to the reliability and availability of performance data, through our file review and analysis of available program information we were able to identify a number of potential opportunities and mechanisms that could improve the efficiency of the process.

Security Interview

The results of our file review^{Footnote 4} identified on average, Atlantic DSS had quicker processing times for all security clearance types compared with the other three DSS (Appendix C). A key explanation for this as provided by Program staff, was that the field investigations and security interviews in Atlantic are coordinated by the hiring manager prior to sending the file to the DSS, while in the other DSSs the coordination and conduct of field investigations and the security interview are done by security screening program staff as part of the security screening process. With quicker security screening processing times, Atlantic DSS has a reported higher file completion rate per FTE resource compared with the other three DSSs (Figure 2).

For the most part, overall processing times for the Central, Northwest, and Pacific DSSs include time for the conduct of the security interview as well as the queue time waiting for the interview as well as the administration of the interview results, which we were informed by Program staff can be significant.

The use of the interview as part of the security screening process plays an important part in assessing and corroborating information provided by an applicant. While important, the use of the interview itself is not a mandatory requirement by the standard. The standard requires that a "security questionnaire and/or security interview" be conducted. ***.

***

In light of a relatively low denial rate, in an effort to improve the efficiency of the security screening process, the RCMP could consider a risk based approach with respect to whether conducting a security interview is necessary i.e. when adverse information is identified during other security screening activities. ***.

Risk Investigations

Another area that was identified by Program staff as being an internal queue or bottleneck is risk investigations. In the majority of cases when adverse information is uncovered during security screening activities the file is referred to a DSS's Risk Unit for a risk investigation. A risk investigation can involve additional interviews, further law enforcement records checks, and consideration by DSB for the ultimate adjudication of the clearance request which could result in a denial, suspension, or revocation.

***. There is an opportunity within this DSS to enhance process efficiency by moving away from the practice of referring all of its RM recruit files to its risk unit.

Employment and Character Reference Checks

Elements of the field investigation of the security screening process has been identified by Program staff as an internal bottleneck. Through our interviews with Program staff, we've identified that the method of assessing an applicant's employee and character references is not delivered uniformly across the DSSs. We were informed by Program staff that one DSS conducts employment and character reference interviews in-person; this involves local travel and may involve travel outside the geographical area where the field investigator is located. ***. The practice of conducting employment and character references in-person appears to be overly risk averse in relation to overall denial rate. ***.

Law Enforcement Records Checks

The RCMP currently checks up to *** data bases as part of its security screening process. Analysts need to input tombstone information into each of the data bases separately for both the employee and in some cases family and associates, resulting in a somewhat labour intensive and time consuming process.

***. The audit team learned that various proposals have been put forward by DSS employees to reduce the number of data base checks that are conducted for each file, but none have been approved or implemented. DSB is considering the use two database inquiry tools, ***, to increase the timeliness of processing security clearance updates. If these tools are successful in addressing the update backlog, DSB could consider extending the use of these tools for all new and upgrade security clearances. Using a risk-based approach for all security files, DSB could use these two databases inquiry tools and then would only conduct the full spectrum of law enforcement checks if the initial checks through *** identified areas of risk.

Increasing the transferability of security clearances from other departments and agencies

Due to limitations in the information management systems utilized by the program, we were unable to assess the number of security clearance files that related to applicants who already possessed a security clearance obtained through another federal department or agency. However, based on interviews with individuals in the program and other hiring managers within the RCMP, we were informed that the volume of these types of files in the process do not represent an immaterial amount of demand for Program staff. As the reliability and availability of performance data improves, the Program will be in a better position to assess the real demand relating to these types of files.

***, DSB could consider either a reduced level of assessment or a risk-based approach to accepting security clearances from other government departments and agencies. Special consideration could also be given to those departments agencies that are part of the security portfolio.

Backlog of Security Files

The periodic review of an employee's security status is referred to as a security update. As per the standard the security manual, an update is required every 10 years for RRS and secret security clearances, and every five years for top secret security clearances. Updates are a critical insider threat mitigation measure. DSB defines insider threat as the threat from an individual, or group, who: has special knowledge, or access, to critical information or assets in an organization; and has the intent to cause harm, danger, or stand to gain from their privileged position.

The 2011 audit reported that a backlog of security clearance updates existed in most regions. As part of its management action plan, DSB was to consider potential solutions to address these backlogs.

***. During the reporting phase of this audit, DSB reported that all DSSs continue to have a significant backlog of security updates, with smaller backlogs for new and upgrade files. ***. We were informed by DSB officials that backlog information for new and upgrade files was not available for previous years, thereby limiting our ability to assess whether those backlogs were increasing or decreasing.

***

In addition, as the reliability and availability of performance data relating to backlogs improves, DSB and DSSs will be in a better situation to assess whether a strong business case exits for additional program resources for short term "surge" efforts. By eliminating backlogs, resources dedicated to the program would be able to focus on new files, thereby helping to increase the timeliness of processing.

By taking appropriate and timely action with respect to security clearance backlogs, the RCMP will reduce its risk of *** and will be better positioned to direct its program resources to new security clearance files.

Online Industrial Security Services Portal

DSB is in the process of replacing the existing paper-based information-gathering process with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) ***. This application streamlines the form completion process and reduces the need to correct errors or track down missing information. *** has been implemented for Regular Member recruiting, and is being piloted in at the Central DSS for other employee categories.

Other potential process efficiencies

In 2013, following the 2011 internal audit, DSB conducted a business process re-engineering initiative aimed at mapping and measuring the process, and making performance improvements accordingly. The process included onsite consultations with each DSSs where processes were identified, challenges noted, and best practices reported. The benchmarking exercise identified the following bottlenecks:

• Requesting and awaiting missing information from hiring managers and/or applicants;
• Requesting field investigations;
• Awaiting the completion of the field investigation/security interview;
• Awaiting database checks that cannot be conducted by the analyst themselves;
• ***;
• Awaiting the outcome of risk investigations resulting from the identification of adverse information; and
• Time spent in internal queues awaiting the availability of security analysts.

Given both the lack of detailed performance data for the files sampled during our site visits and the differing practices across the DSSs the audit team was not able to measure and analyze these bottlenecks in any detail. However, through interviews and observation the audit team was able to corroborate that these areas continue to be perceived bottlenecks in the process. As the reliability and availability of performance data improves, the Program will be in a better position to assess the impact of each of these areas on the overall timeliness of the process and any related efficiency enhancement.

4. Conclusion

DSB has made progress on certain issues identified by IAER's 2011 Audit of Personnel Security. In addition to enhancing the rigour in the screening process and defining and communicating risk tolerances through RCMP's Senior Executive Committee, DSB has identified and implemented a number of process efficiencies and initiated process enhancing initiatives.

***. Improvements in these areas are necessary to further facilitate improvements to the effective and efficient delivery of the security screening program.

***. DSB is aware of these challenges and is taking measures to improve the capture of performance information. Notwithstanding the challenges relating to the ***, through our file review and analysis of available program information we were able to identify a number of potential opportunities and mechanisms that could improve the efficiency of the process.

5. Recommendations

1. The Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services should work with the Senior Executive Committee and Commanding Officers to further define, document, and communicate the authorities of the DSO within the departmental security program and specifically the personnel security screening program.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services should develop a mechanism to capture complete and accurate personnel security screening program costs to enable informed decision-making relating to determining resource requirements and the strategic reallocation of funds within the program.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services should develop a performance measurement framework and create a national oversight and monitoring function to ensure the personnel security screening program is meeting its objectives.
4. The Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services in collaboration with other departmental security stakeholders should assess the merits and the feasibility of the potential process efficiencies identified in section 3.2 of this report.

Appendix A – Audit objective and criteria

Appendix B – Screening process overview^{Footnote 5}

***

Appendix C – File review detailed results

***

The way forward: The RCMP’s sexual assault review and victim support action plan

Summary

Sexual assault is a devastating crime that has traumatic and long-lasting effects on victims. A negative experience with police investigators can bring more trauma to victims, and discourage others from reporting these crimes.

Earlier this year, RCMP Divisions^{Footnote 1} conducted a review of all unfounded sexual assault files from 2016. The RCMP created a team in Ottawa to review the divisional reports, assess all aspects of sexual assault investigations, consult with external stakeholders, partners and experts, and provide direction on how to improve RCMP investigations into these serious crimes.

The RCMP is committed to ensuring investigative excellence and support for victims of sexual assault in Canada. Our objectives are clear:

• treat victims of sexual assault with compassion, care and respect, informed by established evidence-based best practices;
• conduct sexual assault investigations across Canada consistently and to the highest professional standards, with oversight practices established to ensure the greatest level of accountability and stewardship of investigations; and,
• increase public awareness and trust of RCMP sexual assault investigations and encourage greater levels of reporting.

The RCMP is taking action to strengthen police training and awareness, investigative accountability, victim support, and public education and communication.

Background

According to a 2015 Statistics Canada report, an estimated 635,000 incidents of sexual assault occurred in Canada in 2014, of which an estimated 90 per cent were not reported to police. Women were victims in 87 per cent of these incidents. These statistics have remained virtually unchanged since 2004, while the rates of all other types of crime decreased.

In the same survey, victims of sexual assault reported having lower confidence in police. Victims who did not report the incident to the police most commonly indicated that they felt the crime was minor and not worth the time to report.

In February 2017, The Globe and Mail published an investigative series on how police handle sexual assault reporting, highlighting that police classify, on average, one in five reported sexual assaults as unfounded. The reporting also uncovered stories that raise questions about how some investigators may treat victims of sexual assaults.

2016 file review

The RCMP examined all sexual assault files classified as unfounded from 2016 to ensure that investigations followed RCMP operational policy, all viable investigative avenues were pursued, and cases were accurately classified based on available information. The results made it clear that changes are necessary.

• The RCMP responded to 10,038 reported sexual assault cases across Canada.
• Divisions reviewed 2,225 sexual assault cases classified as unfounded.
• Divisions determined that 1,260 unfounded cases were misclassified.
• Divisions and National Headquarters identified 284 files for further investigation.
• Following the file review, the RCMP's 2016 national average unfounded rate is actually 9.6 per cent, down from 22 per cent prior to the review.

* All numbers in this report are current up to October 30, 2017

RCMP unfounded sexual assault investigations for 2016

** Files identified for further investigation may require additional interviews, better documentation or the use of other investigative tools.

The review team also found qualitative issues with some investigations, including:

• insufficient documentation of how a case was pursued or why it was classified as unfounded;
• inconsistent oversight to ensure investigations were conducted, documented and classified properly; and,
• little knowledge of consent law by investigators.

The RCMP also conducted a sample review of 93 sexual assault cases from 2015. Reviewers found that investigators consistently misinterpreted the unfounded category.

Action:

• The RCMP's file review has been expanded to include all sexual assault investigations not cleared by charge for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017. This work will be completed by the National Headquarters review team.
• The RCMP created a Best Practices Guide for Sexual Assault Investigations that complements RCMP policy and provides investigators with a reference guide and checklist to assist them in conducting comprehensive investigations.

Stakeholder consultations

The RCMP consulted with national and international law enforcement agencies and met with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government partners to discuss sexual assault investigational practices, policy, training and public engagement.

The NGOs included victim services professionals and victim/community advocates across Canada. These groups advised the RCMP on sexual assault investigation best practices, as well as challenges faced by victims, their families and victim support services when reporting sexual assault cases to police.

Stakeholder input, often validated by the sexual assault file review, focussed on four areas: police training and awareness, investigative accountability, victim support, and public education and communication.

Police training and awareness

Stakeholders indicated that police-held stereotypes about how victims of sexual violence should act, including expectations around victims' ability to consistently recount their stories, have led to sexual assault files being concluded too quickly or deemed unfounded.

The RCMP's file review supported these claims. Reviewers noted that some members equated inconsistencies in victims' statements with dishonesty, and demonstrated a general lack of awareness regarding how trauma might affect a victim's ability to recount events, or how instinctual and unconscious coping strategies may change or mask emotions.

While young women are the most vulnerable to sexual assault, they are not the only victims. Male victim support groups indicated that some men do not report sexual assaults because they feel they will be perceived as homosexual or un-masculine. Moreover, LGBTQ2+ victim support groups said that perceptions of police attitudes towards the community, as well as inconsistencies in how police identify intimate partner violence among same sex couples, were barriers to LGBTQ2+ individuals reporting.

Stakeholders also highlighted that police investigators were not always aware of recent consent case law. Victim advocates cited situations where investigations were closed once it was determined that the victim did not say 'no,' but had indicated through other means that the sexual act was not wanted.

Sexual assault investigations are complex and stressful for victims, witnesses and investigators. Police investigators must have trauma-informed, victim-centric investigative training, as well as easy access to the latest case law, legislation and science concerning sexual violence.

Action:

• The RCMP will develop a sexual assault training curriculum that addresses existing legislation and consent law; focusses on trauma-informed investigative tools and approaches, and gender-based violence; highlights common myths and stereotypes; reinforces victim rights and support services; and, bolsters supervisory oversight and review. This training will be inclusive of vulnerable populations including but not limited to: Indigenous people, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, sex trade workers, children and youth under 18. It will also be reflective of the diverse cultures and communities the RCMP serves.
• RCMP Divisions will share components of the RCMP training curriculum with all employees who may interact with sexual assault victims and/or support investigations.

Investigative accountability

Classifying a sexual assault file as unfounded is accurate in some cases. However, stakeholders stressed that incorrectly classifying a file as unfounded negatively impacts public perceptions of how police investigators handle sexual assault reports, and could discourage victims from reporting these crimes to police. Victims may be at further risk if perpetrators are not pursued because a file is incorrectly closed, and perpetrators may be emboldened if they believe they are unlikely to get caught.

In 2000, the Philadelphia Police Department was criticized for how it investigated and classified sexual assault cases. This led to the establishment of an external oversight committee (the Philadelphia Model) made up of police, relevant government departments and NGOs to annually examine all sexual assault cases classified as unfounded. The rate of unfounded cases in Philadelphia dropped to four per cent; lower than the American national average of seven per cent.

Action:

• The RCMP will form a national unit to provide training, guidance and oversight for sexual assault investigations, and to work with Divisions to establish external advisory committees, where appropriate, to provide advice and guidance on sexual assault files where the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction.
• The RCMP will update its policies and procedures to direct that investigators must provide clear justification for classifying a file as unfounded, and the classification must be approved by the immediate supervisor.
• The RCMP will continue to work with partners and stakeholders, including NGOs, to consult on the development of training, public awareness and internal policies associated with sexual assault.
• Each RCMP Division will put in place a process to ensure appropriate supervisory oversight of sexual assault files.

Victim support

Victim support advocates highlighted that victims of sexual violence who report to police are seeking a welcoming, secure and private environment that encourages trust and empathy. They also stressed that victim services programming is critical to reducing the effects of victimization and re-victimization, and stated that police officers must be aware of available victim services in their jurisdictions.

Stakeholders across the country also highlighted how important it is for police and victim services providers to forge strong partnerships. Several stakeholders shared examples of existing police-victim services partnerships that work well, but others noted that more could be done in some jurisdictions.

Stakeholders also cautioned that, because of physical or emotional trauma, some victims may not be able to give informed consent to a victim services referral. In these cases, stakeholders supported respectful proactive referrals, where police contact victim services on behalf of the victim. Victim services then contacts the victim to offer services. The RCMP's Victim Assistance policy instructs members to conduct an assessment of each situation to determine if conditions exist for a proactive referral.

Action:

• RCMP Divisions will establish protocols for providing safe, secure and private environments for victims to report sexual assault.
• Employees that interact with victims of sexual assault will be given a list of available victim services programs, and clear procedures for referring victims.
• Investigators, supervisors and detachment commanders will strengthen relationships with victim services partners, and hold regular meetings to share information, identify concerns and work collaboratively to support victims.
• The RCMP will continue to explore alternative options for victims to report sexual assaults, such as third party reporting.

Public education and communications

Statistics Canada annual crime reporting is clear: the overwhelming majority of sexual assault victims do not report the incident to the police because they feel the crime is minor and not worth the time to report. Victims of sexual assault also report having lower confidence in police.

Stakeholder consultations consistently raised that victims may also avoid reporting sexual assaults for fear of the unknown. Victim support advocates stated that law enforcement should provide the public with accessible information about what victims can expect when reporting sexual assaults, and how police can help identify victim support services.

Action:

• The RCMP will develop public awareness products that encourage victims to report allegations to police, and explain what victims may expect when reporting a sexual assault.

Summary of RCMP actions

2016 file review

• The RCMP's file review has been expanded to include all sexual assault investigations not cleared by charge for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017. This work will be completed by the National Headquarters review team.
• The RCMP created a Best Practices Guide for Sexual Assault Investigations that complements RCMP policy and provides investigators with a reference guide and checklist to assist them in conducting comprehensive investigations.

Police training and awareness

• The RCMP will develop a sexual assault training curriculum that addresses existing legislation and consent law; focusses on trauma-informed investigative tools and approaches, and gender-based violence; highlights common myths and stereotypes; reinforces victim rights and support services; and, bolsters supervisory oversight and review. This training will be inclusive of vulnerable populations including but not limited to: Indigenous people, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, sex trade workers, children and youth under 18. It will also be reflective of the diverse cultures and communities the RCMP serves.
• RCMP Divisions will share components of the RCMP training curriculum with all employees who may interact with sexual assault victims and/or support investigations.

Investigative accountability

• The RCMP will form a national unit to provide training, guidance and oversight for sexual assault investigations, and to work with Divisions to establish external advisory committees, where appropriate, to provide advice and guidance on sexual assault files where the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction.
• The RCMP will update its policies and procedures to direct that investigators must provide clear justification for classifying a file as unfounded, and the classification must be approved by the immediate supervisor.
• The RCMP will continue to work with partners and stakeholders, including NGOs, to consult on the development of training, public awareness and internal policies associated with sexual assault.
• Each RCMP Division will put in place a process to ensure appropriate supervisory oversight of sexual assault files.

Victim support

• RCMP Divisions will establish protocols for providing safe, secure and private environments for victims to report sexual assault.
• Employees that interact with victims of sexual assault will be given a list of available victim services programs, and clear procedures for referring victims.
• Investigators, supervisors and detachment commanders will strengthen relationships with victim services partners, and hold regular meetings to share information, identify concerns and work collaboratively to support victims.
• The RCMP will continue to explore alternative options for victims to report sexual assaults, such as third party reporting.

Public education and communications

• The RCMP will develop public awareness products that encourage victims to report allegations to police, and explain what victims may expect when reporting a sexual assault.

La voie à suivre : Plan d’action de la GRC sur l’examen des plaintes d’agression sexuelle et le soutien aux victimes

Sommaire

Les agressions sexuelles sont des crimes dévastateurs et traumatisants qui ont des effets à long terme sur les victimes. De plus, les expériences négatives avec les enquêteurs de police peuvent ajouter au traumatisme des victimes ou en dissuader d'autres de porter plainte.

Plus tôt cette année, les divisions^{Note de bas de page 1} de la GRC ont passé en revue toutes les affaires d'agression sexuelle qu'elles avaient été amenées à juger sans fondement depuis 2016.

La GRC a créé une équipe à Ottawa pour étudier les rapports divisionnaires, se pencher sur tous les aspects des enquêtes sur les agressions sexuelles, consulter des intervenants externes, des partenaires et des experts et guider la GRC dans l'amélioration de ses enquêtes sur ces crimes graves.

La GRC s'est engagée à assurer l'excellence en matière d'enquête et de soutien aux victimes d'agressions sexuelles au Canada. Nos objectifs sont clairs :

• traiter les victimes d'agression sexuelle avec compassion, sollicitude et respect, conformément aux pratiques dont l'exemplarité est fondée sur les faits
• partout au Canada, dans les affaires d'agression sexuelle, mener systématiquement des enquêtes dignes des normes professionnelles les plus élevées, en mettant en œuvre les pratiques de contrôle établies pour assurer le niveau maximal de responsabilisation et d'intendance des enquêtes; et
• sensibiliser le public et accroitre sa confiance dans les enquêtes de la GRC sur les agressions sexuelles, accroître sa confiance dans ces enquêtes et l'encourager à signaler toute agression sexuelle dont il a connaissance.

La GRC prend des mesures pour renforcer la formation et la sensibilisation des policiers, la responsabilisation en matière d'enquête, le soutien aux victimes et les communications et la sensibilisation du public.

Contexte

Selon un rapport de sondage de Statistique Canada daté de 2015, on estime que 635 000 incidents d'agression sexuelle ont eu lieu au Canada en 2014, dont environ 90 pourcent n'ont pas été signalés à la police. Des femmes étaient les victimes de 87 pourcent de ces incidents. Ces statistiques sont pratiquement demeurées inchangées depuis 2004, alors que tous les autres types de crimes ont diminué.

Dans le même sondage, les victimes d'agressions sexuelles ont dit avoir moins confiance en la police. Les victimes qui n'ont pas signalé l'incident à la police ont le plus souvent indiqué qu'elles avaient l'impression que le crime était mineur et ne valait pas la peine d'être déclaré.

En février 2017, le Globe and Mail publié une série d'articles sur la façon dont la police traite les signalements d'agressions sexuelles. On y indiquait que la police détermine, en moyenne, qu'une plainte d'agression sexuelle sur cinq est sans fondement. On y dévoilait aussi des témoignages qui soulèvent des questions quant à la façon dont certains enquêteurs pourraient traiter les victimes d'agressions sexuelles.

Examen des dossiers de 2016

La GRC a examiné tous les dossiers d'agressions sexuelles classés comme sans fondement depuis 2016 pour s'assurer que les enquêtes avaient été menées conformément à la politique opérationnelle de la GRC, que toutes les pistes d'enquête sérieuses avaient été explorées et que les affaires avaient été classées comme il se doit compte tenu de l'information disponible. Les résultats de cette démarche indiquaient clairement que des changements s'imposent.

• La GRC a donné suite à 10 038 signalements d'agressions sexuelles dans l'ensemble du Canada.
• Les divisions ont passé en revue 2 225 dossiers d'agressions sexuelles classés comme sans fondement.
• Les divisions ont déterminé que 1 260 dossiers classés comme sans fondement n'auraient pas dû être classés comme tels.
• Les divisions et la Direction générale ont relevé 284 dossiers requérant une enquête plus poussée.
• Après l'examen des dossiers de 2016, le taux moyen de dossiers classés comme sans fondement à l'échelle nationale est passé de 22 pourcent à 9,6 pourcent.

* Tous les chiffres contenus dans le présent rapport sont à jour au 30 octobre 2017.

Agressions sexuelles classées comme sans fondement par la GRC en 2016

** Les dossiers requérant une enquête plus poussée peuvent nécessiter des entrevues supplémentaires, une meilleure documentation ou l'utilisation d'autres outils d'enquête.

L'équipe d'examen a également soulevé des manquements qualitatifs dans certaines enquêtes, notamment :

• une documentation insuffisante sur les mesures qui ont été prises dans un dossier ou sur les raisons qui ont justifié qu'il soit classé comme sans fondement;
• le manque de régularité dans le contrôle visant à vérifier que les enquêtes sont menées, documentées et classées comme il se doit; et
• le manque de connaissance des enquêteurs sur la loi en ce qui concerne le consentement.

De plus, des membres de la GRC ont examiné un échantillon de 93 dossiers d'agression sexuelle datant de 2015. Les examinateurs ont déterminé que les enquêteurs se méprenaient régulièrement sur la classification des plaintes sans fondement.

Mesures de suivi :

• Le projet d'examen des dossiers de la GRC a été élargi pour englober toutes les enquêtes sur des plaintes d'agression sexuelle qui n'ont pas été réglées par mises en accusation au cours des années civiles 2015, 2016 et 2017. Ce projet sera réalisé par l'équipe d'examen de la Direction générale.
• La GRC a développé un guide de pratiques exemplaires en matière d'enquête sur les agressions sexuelles qui viendra compléter la politique de la GRC et qui constituera pour les enquêteurs un guide de référence qui les aidera à mener des enquêtes exhaustives.

Consultations auprès des parties intéressées

De membres de la GRC ont consulté des représentants d'organismes canadiens et étrangers chargés de l'application de la loi et ont rencontré des membres d'organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) et d'organismes partenaires du gouvernement pour discuter des pratiques, des politiques, de la formation et de la participation publique en lien avec les enquêtes sur les agressions sexuelles.

Parmi les ONG consultées, mentionnons des regroupements de professionnels des services aux victimes et de défenseurs des droits des victimes de partout au Canada. Ces intervenants ont donné leur avis sur les pratiques exemplaires en matière d'enquête sur les agressions sexuelles et sur les difficultés auxquelles se butent les victimes, leur famille et les services de soutien aux victimes lorsque des agressions sexuelles sont signalées à la police.

Les commentaires des parties intéressées, souvent validés lors de l'examen des dossiers d'agressions sexuelles, étaient centrés sur les quatre éléments suivants : la formation et la sensibilisation des policiers, la responsabilisation en matière d'enquête, le soutien aux victimes ainsi que la sensibilisation du public.

Formation et sensibilisation des policiers

Les parties intéressées ont indiqué que certains dossiers d'agression sexuelle sont clos trop rapidement ou jugés sans fondement à cause des idées préconçues des policiers quant à la façon dont les victimes de violence sexuelle devraient se comporter, notamment l'attente qu'elles puissent raconter fidèlement l'incident.

L'examen des dossiers de la GRC confirme cette assertion. Les examinateurs ont remarqué que certains membres prenaient des incohérences dans les déclarations des victimes pour de la malhonnêteté et, de façon générale, méconnaissaient les effets d'un traumatisme sur la capacité des victimes de relater les événements ou ignoraient que les stratégies d'adaptation instinctives ou inconscientes peuvent modifier ou masquer les émotions.

Si les jeunes femmes sont les plus à risque d'être agressées sexuellement, elles ne sont pas les seules victimes. Des représentants de groupes de soutien aux hommes victimes d'agressions sexuelles ont indiqué que certains hommes ne signalent pas les agressions dont ils sont victimes parce qu'ils croient qu'ils seront perçus comme des homosexuels ou des hommes efféminés. De plus, des responsables de groupes de soutien pour les victimes LGBTQ2+ ont affirmé que certaines victimes hésitaient à porter plainte à cause de la perception que la police a de la communauté LGBTQ2+ et à cause du manque de logique dans la façon dont la police nomme la violence dans les couples homosexuels.

En outre, les parties intéressées ont souligné que les enquêteurs n'étaient pas toujours au fait de la jurisprudence récente sur le consentement. Les défenseurs des droits des victimes ont mentionné des situations où les enquêtes étaient closes lorsqu'il était déterminé que la victime n'avait pas dit « non », même si elle avait indiqué autrement son refus.

Les enquêtes sur les agressions sexuelles sont complexes et stressantes pour les victimes, les témoins et les enquêteurs. Ces derniers doivent recevoir de la formation centrée sur les victimes qui porte sur les effets des traumatismes, et avoir facilement accès à la jurisprudence, à la législation et aux études scientifiques les plus récentes au sujet de la violence sexuelle.

Mesures de suivi :

• La GRC élaborera une formation sur les agressions sexuelles qui porte sur la législation en vigueur et la loi sur le consentement, et qui insistera sur les méthodes d'enquête qui tiennent compte des effets des traumatismes ainsi que la violence fondée sur le sexe, qui met en lumière des mythes et des stéréotypes répandus, qui met l'accent sur les droits des victimes et les services de soutien qui leur sont offerts et qui appuie la supervision et les examens. Cette formation englobera toutes les populations vulnérables, notamment les Autochtones, les aînés, les personnes handicapées, les travailleuses et travailleurs du sexe, les enfants et les jeunes de moins de 18 ans. De plus, elle sera à l'image des différentes cultures et communautés que la GRC sert.
• Les divisions de la GRC transmettront le contenu de la formation de la GRC à tous les employés qui pourraient être appelés à interagir avec des victimes d'agression sexuelle ou appuyer des enquêtes sur des agressions sexuelles.

Responsabilisation en matière d'enquête

Il est exact dans certains cas de classer un dossier d'agression sexuelle comme sans fondement. Toutefois, les parties intéressées ont souligné que le faire à tort nuit à la perception du public quant à la façon dont les enquêteurs prennent en charge les signalements d'agressions sexuelles et peut dissuader des victimes de parler à la police. Si les agresseurs ne sont pas accusés parce qu'un dossier est clos incorrectement, d'une part les victimes peuvent être encore plus à risque d'être agressées et d'autre part, les agresseurs peuvent s'enhardir s'ils croient qu'ils risquent peu de se faire prendre.

En 2000, le service de police de Philadelphie a reçu des critiques sur la façon dont il avait enquêté sur des affaires d'agressions sexuelles et la manière dont il avait classé ces dossiers. Ces reproches ont mené à la création d'un comité externe de surveillance (le modèle de Philadelphie) composé de policiers et de représentants de ministères et d'ONG qui se penchent chaque année sur tous les dossiers d'agression sexuelle classés comme sans fondement. Le taux de dossiers classés comme sans fondement à Philadelphie a chuté à quatre pourcent, un taux inférieur à la moyenne américaine de sept pourcent.

Mesures du suivi :

• La GRC créera un groupe national qui fournira formation, conseils et surveillance en lien avec les enquêtes d'agressions sexuelles et qui collaborera avec les divisions pour mettre sur pied, là où il convient de le faire, des comités consultatifs externes qui guideront les enquêteurs dans les dossiers d'agressions sexuelles qui relèvent de la GRC.
• La GRC actualisera ses politiques et processus de façon à ce que les enquêteurs doivent justifier clairement le classement d'un dossier comme sans fondement et faire approuver le classement par leur superviseur immédiat.
• La GRC continuera de collaborer avec ses partenaires et les parties intéressées, y compris des ONG, et de les consulter au sujet de l'élaboration de la formation, de la sensibilisation du public et des politiques internes associées aux agressions sexuelles.
• Chaque division de la GRC mettra en place un processus pour assurer une surveillance appropriée des dossiers d'agression sexuelle.

Soutien aux victimes

Les défenseurs des droits des victimes ont indiqué que les victimes de violence sexuelle qui vont parler à la police souhaitent être reçues dans un milieu accueillant, sûr et privé qui invite à la confiance et à l'empathie. Ils ont aussi souligné que les services d'aide aux victimes contribuent de façon essentielle à limiter les séquelles que gardent les victimes d'un ou de plusieurs actes criminels et que les policiers doivent connaître les services offerts aux victimes dans leur région.

Les parties intéressées de partout au pays ont également souligné l'importance pour les policiers et les fournisseurs de soins aux victimes de nouer de solides partenariats. Plusieurs ont parlé de tels partenariats qui portent des fruits, alors que d'autres ont fait remarquer qu'on pourrait faire plus à cet égard sur certains territoires de compétence.

Les parties intéressées ont expliqué que les victimes qui ont subi un traumatisme physique ou émotionnel risquent de ne pas être capables de donner leur consentement éclairé pour être aiguillées vers un fournisseur de services aux victimes. Dans de tels cas, les parties intéressées appuient les aiguillages proactifs, dans le cadre desquels la police communique avec les fournisseurs de services aux victimes au nom de la victime. Ensuite, les fournisseurs communiquent directement avec la victime pour lui offrir leurs services. La politique sur les services d'assistance aux victimes de la GRC charge les membres de la GRC d'évaluer chaque situation pour déterminer si les conditions d'aiguillage proactif sont réunies.

Mesures de suivi :

• Les divisions de la GRC établiront des protocoles afin d'offrir un climat sûr et privé aux victimes qui veulent signaler une agression sexuelle.
• Les employés qui sont appelés à interagir avec des victimes d'agressions sexuelles recevront une liste des programmes de services aux victimes ainsi qu'un processus clair pour aiguiller les victimes vers ces services.
• Les enquêteurs, les superviseurs et les chefs de détachement renforceront leurs liens avec les fournisseurs de services aux victimes et les rencontreront régulièrement pour se communiquer de l'information, cerner les sources de préoccupation et collaborer pour aider les victimes.
• La GRC continuera d'explorer d'autres façons pour les victimes de signaler les agressions sexuelles, notamment les signalements par les tiers.

Communications et sensibilisation du public

Le rapport annuel de Statistique Canada sur la criminalité énonce clairement que la grande majorité des victimes d'agressions sexuelles ne signalent pas l'incident à la police parce qu'elles ont l'impression que le crime est mineur et qu'il ne vaut pas la peine d'être déclaré. De plus, les victimes d'agressions sexuelles disent avoir moins confiance en la police.

Lors des consultations, les parties intéressées ont régulièrement mentionné que les victimes peuvent aussi éviter de signaler les agressions sexuelles par peur de l'inconnu. Les défenseurs des droits des victimes ont affirmé que les policiers devraient communiquer au public de l'information accessible sur ce à quoi les victimes peuvent s'attendre lorsqu'elles signalent une agression sexuelle à la police et sur la façon dont la police peut aiguiller les victimes vers les services d'aide dont elles ont besoin.

Mesure de suivi :

• La GRC développera des produits de sensibilisation du public qui encourage les victimes à porter plainte à la police et qui expliquent ce à quoi les victimes peuvent s'attendre lorsqu'elles signalent une agression sexuelle.

Résumé des mesures de suivi pour la GRC

Examen des dossiers de 2016

• Le projet d'examen des dossiers de la GRC a été élargi pour englober toutes les enquêtes sur des plaintes d'agression sexuelle qui n'ont pas été réglées par mises en accusation au cours des années civiles 2015, 2016 et 2017. Ce projet sera réalisé par l'équipe d'examen de la Direction générale.
• La GRC a développé un guide de pratiques exemplaires en matière d'enquête sur les agressions sexuelles qui viendra compléter la politique de la GRC et qui constituera pour les enquêteurs un guide de référence qui les aidera à mener des enquêtes exhaustives.

Formation et sensibilisation des policiers

• La GRC élaborera une formation sur les agressions sexuelles qui porte sur la législation en vigueur et la loi sur le consentement, les méthodes d'enquête qui prennent les effets des traumatismes en compte ainsi que la violence fondée sur le sexe, qui met en lumière des mythes et des stéréotypes répandus, qui met l'accent sur les droits des victimes et les services de soutien qui leur sont offerts et qui appuie la supervision et les examens. Cette formation englobera toutes les populations vulnérables, notamment les Autochtones, les aînés, les personnes handicapées, les travailleuses et travailleurs du sexe, les enfants et les jeunes de moins de 18 ans. De plus, elle sera à l'image des différentes cultures et communautés que la GRC sert.
• Les divisions de la GRC transmettront le contenu de la formation de la GRC à tous les employés qui pourraient être appelés à interagir avec des victimes d'agression sexuelle ou appuyer des enquêtes sur des agressions sexuelles.

Responsabilisation en matière d'enquête

• La GRC formera un groupe national qui fournira formation, conseils et surveillance portant sur les enquêtes d'agressions sexuelles et qui collaborera avec les divisions pour mettre sur pied, là où il convient de le faire, des comités consultatifs externes qui guideront les enquêteurs dans les dossiers d'agressions sexuelles qui relèvent de la GRC.
• La GRC actualisera ses politiques et processus de façon à ce que les enquêteurs doivent justifier clairement le classement d'un dossier comme sans fondement et faire approuver le classement par leur superviseur immédiat.
• La GRC continuera de collaborer avec ses partenaires et les parties intéressées, y compris des ONG, et de les consulter au sujet de l'élaboration de la formation, de la sensibilisation du public et des politiques internes associées aux agressions sexuelles.
• Chaque division de la GRC mettra en place un processus pour assurer une surveillance appropriée des dossiers d'agression sexuelle.

Soutien aux victimes

• Les divisions de la GRC établiront des protocoles afin d'offrir un climat sûr et privé aux victimes qui veulent signaler une agression sexuelle.
• Les employés qui sont appelés à interagir avec des victimes d'agressions sexuelles recevront une liste des programmes de services aux victimes ainsi qu'un processus clair pour aiguiller les victimes vers ces services.
• Les enquêteurs, les superviseurs et les chefs de détachement renforceront leurs liens avec les fournisseurs de services aux victimes et les rencontreront régulièrement pour se communiquer de l'information, cerner les sources de préoccupation et collaborer pour aider les victimes.
• La GRC continuera d'explorer d'autres façons pour les victimes de signaler les agressions sexuelles, notamment les signalements par les tiers.

Sensibilisation du public

• La GRC développera des produits de sensibilisation du public qui encouragent les victimes à porter plainte à la police et qui expliquent ce à quoi les victimes peuvent s'attendre lorsqu'elles signalent une agression sexuelle.

Making requests under the Privacy Act

On this page

• How to request personal information
• Tips for submitting your request
• Examples of personal information
• Cost
• Delays
• Make a request by email or mail
• What happens once you make your request
• What you will receive after processing your request
• Third-party requests
• Requesting personal information about deceased individuals
• Requirements for written consent
• Complaints

Under the Privacy Act, Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals, regardless of where they are located, can request access to their personal information held by federal government institutions.

How to request personal information

The easiest way to submit a request is by using the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request service. It's fast and convenient. This service allows you to make online requests for information instead of having to print, scan, mail or email a paper form.

The Government of Canada's online portal lists the information you should have on hand before submitting your request.

Tips for submitting your request

Why do I need to be precise when requesting information

The RCMP is a large, multi-jurisdictional organization with offices and detachments across Canada. We use many different record-keeping systems that are not fully integrated. Searches for records are not done by the ATIP Branch in Ottawa; they are done by the division, detachment, program or employee who holds the records in question. As such, we need to understand the geographic location where your request will primarily be held in order to task it appropriately. For this reason, the more precise the request is, the faster we can respond.

You must include enough information about the records you wish to access to allow an experienced employee of the RCMP, with reasonable effort, to find the records being requested. For example:

• provide a clear and detailed description of the information you are looking for
• give a date range and location (you can also include the units, detachments and/or divisions that hold the records)
• separate your requests so that it's a single request

Examples of personal information

The Privacy Act, Section 3(a)-(i), outlines the basis of what is considered personal information. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• home address
• age
• race, ethnic and national origin
• credit card numbers
• criminal records
• educational history
• financial history
• fingerprints
• medical history
• any identifiable number, including social insurance number
• names
• religious beliefs
• telephone numbers
• employment history within a non-governmental organization
• views or opinions of another individual about the individual

Some information that is not considered personal includes:

• job classification/functions of a position/job title
• work-related correspondence
• details of employment contract, including salary range
• work telephone and fax number
• personal opinions or views given in the course of employment

Requests for criminal records

You can only obtain your criminal records held by the RCMP through a criminal records check.

Cost

There is no cost for a Privacy Act request.

Delays

The RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch continues to face challenges that result in response delays to requests submitted under the Privacy Act. Despite our legislative responsibilities, certain realities prevent us from responding in under 30 days.

Delays can be due to:

• operational requirements that call for RCMP members and employees to be redeployed (for instance, natural disasters like wildfires and flooding, significant investigations, and major events, to name just a few)
• the fact that the RCMP still relies heavily on paper-based processes, with records that have not be digitized
• the extensive search required (more than 750 locations throughout Canada)
• the long term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To help streamline your request, try and be as focused and precise as possible. ATIP officials are here to help you get to the core of what you are requesting, in order to assist you to get the information you are requesting as quickly as possible.

The RCMP recognizes the importance of complying with legislated timelines. That is why we are currently overhauling our program and addressing these issues by:

• devoting resources to improve the timeliness of responses
• modernizing policies and procedures within the program to enhance operational efficiency
• expanding training and awareness campaigns for personnel to ensure they understand the obligation to respond within legislated timeframes.

Read the details of our efforts for the next five years in the modernization strategy and action plan.

Make a request by email or mail

If you can't make a request online, you can complete the RCMP's Personal Information Request (Privacy Act) form (PDF document) and email it to atipb@rcmp-grc.gc.ca or mail it to the address below.

If you can't download or print the form, you may also submit a letter clearly describing the personal information you are seeking. You must include the following information:

• full name and date of birth
• photocopy of government-issued photo identification with signature showing (e.g., driver's license or health card)
• your signature
• a return address where the information will be sent
• email address or telephone number in case we need clarification
• information about the type of records being requested (e.g., traffic accident report, personnel file, firearms certificate)
• specific location(s) to conduct our search such as towns or detachments
• RCMP file number if available (this information will allow the ATIP Branch to provide you with the specific documents to which you are seeking access)

Mail your form or letter to:

RCMP Access to Information and Privacy Branch
73 Leikin Drive, Mail Stop #61
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2

What happens once you make your request

How long will it take to receive information?

• Requests are handled in the order in which they are received. We receive a large number of requests on a daily basis and have a significant backlog.
• Once you make your request, the RCMP's ATIP Branch in Ottawa opens a file and identifies where relevant records may be located. Employees located across the country are contacted and asked to provide material, depending on the request.
• The ATIP Branch may also request an extension if more time is needed to collect the information. It can be granted provided the extension is justified.
• Once tasked, RCMP employees must search for all relevant material, which can include electronic files, notebook entries, emails, text messages, etc., and supply them to the ATIP Branch in Ottawa for processing.
• The ATIP Branch may conduct additional consultations, either within the RCMP or with external partners, as needed.
• All of the submitted material is then reviewed by the ATIP Branch, and exemptions and/or exclusions are applied, as outlined by the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. The ATIP Branch will then release the material to the requester.

What will you receive after processing your request

After the materials have been processed, requesters receive the following:

• any releasable documents relevant to your request
• a formal response letter citing any exemptions or exclusions applied during the processing of your request, your right to make a complaint and the relevant process, and contact information for the analyst who processed your request should you have any additional questions or concerns.

Third-party requests

• Under the Privacy Act, individuals can only access their own personal information held by the federal government. The RCMP may only release personal information to the individual concerned, unless that person gives written consent (permission) to another person or organization (e.g. insurance company, law firm) allowing them to request that information.
• To allow access to more complete information, third-party requesters may wish to obtain written consent (permission) from any of the parties involved in a given file or record. Without that permission, the information the RCMP may release will be limited.
• Requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, and the time to answer may be affected by the scope and complexity of the request. Requests will not be processed faster if they are sent by a third party, such as a lawyer.

Requesting personal information about deceased individuals

We understand losing a loved one is difficult. Please accept our condolences as we will do our best in attempting to assist you while also continuing to comply with the Privacy Act and its regulations. Personal information of a deceased person under the control of a federal institution is still considered personal for 20 years after the date of death and may not be released. This includes information gathered by the RCMP during an investigation. As such, we are often extremely limited in what we can provide.

• Administration of an estate: If you are an administrator of an estate, the Privacy Act Regulations do permit the release of certain information to allow the executor to carry out their duties. When submitting your request, please include clear documentation that you are the administrator, and how the information is required to settle the estate. This will allow us to work with your file as quick as possible in your difficult time.
• Spouses or family members: If you are a spouse or family that needs to access personal information of a deceased individual that is not related to the administration of the state, the Privacy Act unfortunately does not make provisions to access personal information of a deceased family member that may be contained in an RCMP file.

Requirements for written consent

A statement of written consent (permission) must include:

• the full name and date of birth of the individual whose personal information is being sought
• the full name of the person/company to whom the consent is being given
• a statement that the individual in question freely and voluntarily gives the RCMP permission to disclose his/her personal information to another individual/ company
• the consenting individual's signature, the date of consent
• a photocopy of government-issued photo identification (with signature showing) for the person giving consent

Sample consent letter

Complaints

Anyone requesting information from an ATIP office has the right to file a complaint in relation to their request to the Privacy Commissioner at the address below, for example, if they:

• are not satisfied with the response they received from the RCMP
• have not received a response within the legislated timeframe
• have a complaint about how the RCMP collected, used, disclosed, retained and/or disposed of their personal information

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
30, Victoria Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 1H3

Présenter une demande en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels

Sur cette page

• Comment présenter une demande de renseignements personnels
• Conseils pour présenter une demande
• Exemples de renseignements personnels
• Coût
• Retards
• Présenter une demande par courriel ou par la poste
• Que se passe-t-il après avoir présenté une demande?
• Que recevrez-vous après le traitement de votre demande?
• Demandes présentées par un tiers
• Demandes de renseignements personnels au sujet d'une personne décédée
• Exigences relatives au consentement écrit
• Plaintes

Aux termes de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, les citoyens canadiens, les résidents permanents et les ressortissants étrangers, peu importe où ils se trouvent, ont le droit de demander l'accès aux renseignements personnels les concernant détenus par les institutions fédérales.

Comment présenter une demande de renseignements personnels

La façon la plus simple de présenter une demande est d'utiliser le service de demande d'accès à l'information et de protection des renseignements personnels (AIPRP) en ligne. C'est rapide et pratique. Ce service vous permet de présenter des demandes de renseignements en ligne au lieu d'avoir à imprimer, à numériser et à envoyer un formulaire par courriel ou par la poste.

Le portail en ligne du gouvernement du Canada énumère les renseignements que vous devez avoir en main avant de présenter une demande.

Conseils pour présenter une demande

Vous devez fournir suffisamment de renseignements sur les documents que vous souhaitez obtenir pour permettre à un(e) employé(e) d'expérience de la GRC de les trouver sans trop de difficulté. Par exemple :

• fournir une description claire et détaillée de l'information que vous recherchez;
• préciser la plage de dates et l'endroit (vous pouvez aussi indiquer les groupes, les détachements ou les divisions qui détiennent les documents);
• séparer vos demandes de façon à ce qu'il n'y ait qu'une seule demande.

Exemples de renseignements personnels

Les renseignements considérés comme personnels sont décrits à l'article 3 de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels [alinéas a) à i) sous « renseignements personnels »]. En voici quelques exemples :

• l'adresse à domicile
• l'âge
• la race et l'origine nationale ou ethnique
• les numéros de carte de crédit
• le casier judiciaire
• les études
• les antécédents financiers
• les empreintes digitales
• les antécédents médicaux
• les numéros identificateurs, tels que le numéro d'assurance sociale
• les noms
• les croyances religieuses
• les numéros de téléphone
• les emplois occupés au sein d'organismes non gouvernementaux
• les idées ou opinions d'autrui au sujet de la personne

Voici quelques exemples de renseignements qui ne sont pas considérés comme personnels :

• la classification, les fonctions ou le titre d'un poste
• la correspondance liée au travail
• les détails d'un contrat d'emploi, y compris l'échelle salariale
• les numéros de téléphone et de télécopieur au travail
• les idées et opinions personnelles exprimées au cours de l'emploi

Demandes de casier judiciaire

Vous pouvez seulement obtenir le casier judiciaire que la GRC détient à votre sujet en demandant une vérification de casier judiciaire.

Coût

Aucun coût ne se rattache au traitement d'une demande faite en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.

Retards

La Sous-direction de l'accès à l'information et de la protection des renseignements personnels (AIPRP) de la GRC se heurte encore à des obstacles qui retardent les réponses aux demandes présentées en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels. Malgré nos obligations prévues par la loi, certaines réalités nous empêchent de répondre en moins de 30 jours.

Les retards peuvent être attribuables :

• aux besoins opérationnels qui peuvent exiger la réaffectation de membres et d'employés de la GRC (par exemple, des catastrophes naturelles comme des incendies de forêt ou des inondations, des enquêtes importantes et des événements majeurs);
• au fait que la GRC dépend encore grandement des processus papier et que des dossiers n'ont pas été numérisés;
• aux recherches approfondies qui sont requises (plus de 750 emplacements dans l'ensemble du Canada);
• aux effets à long terme de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Afin de contribuer à rationaliser votre demande, essayez d'être aussi circonscrit et précis que possible. Les responsables de l'AIPRP peuvent vous aider à aller à l'essentiel de ce que vous demandez afin que vous puissiez obtenir l'information demandée le plus rapidement possible.

La GRC reconnaît l'importance de respecter les délais prescrits et c'est pourquoi nous remanions actuellement notre programme. Nous réglerons ces problèmes en :

• consacrant des ressources à l'amélioration des délais de réponse;
• modernisant les politiques et les procédures du programme pour améliorer l'efficacité opérationnelle;
• mettant en place des campagnes de formation et de sensibilisation des employés afin qu'ils comprennent l'obligation de répondre dans les délais prescrits.

Apprenez-en plus sur les efforts que nous déploierons au cours des cinq prochaines années dans la stratégie de modernisation et le plan d'action.

Présenter une demande par courriel ou par la poste

Si vous ne pouvez pas faire une demande en ligne, vous pouvez remplir le formulaire Demande d'accès à des renseignements personnels (Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels) de la GRC (document PDF) et l'envoyer par courriel à atipb@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ou par la poste à l'adresse ci-dessous.

Si vous ne pouvez pas télécharger ou imprimer le formulaire, vous pouvez envoyer une lettre qui indique clairement les renseignements personnels que vous souhaitez obtenir. Vous devez alors inclure les éléments suivants :

• votre nom au complet et votre date de naissance;
• une photocopie d'une pièce d'identité avec photo délivrée par le gouvernement, sur laquelle la signature est visible (p. ex., permis de conduire ou carte d'assurance maladie);
• votre signature;
• l'adresse où l'information doit être envoyée;
• votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone au cas où nous aurions besoin d'éclaircissements;
• des précisions sur le type de documents demandés (p. ex., rapport sur un accident de la route, dossier du personnel, autorisation d'acquisition d'armes à feu);
• le ou les endroits précis concernés afin d'orienter les recherches (ville, détachement, etc.);
• le numéro du dossier de la GRC, s'il est connu (ce qui permettra à la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP de vous fournir les documents précis que vous cherchez).

Postez votre formulaire ou votre lettre à l'adresse suivante :

Sous-direction de l'accès à l'information et de la protection des renseignements personnels de la GRC
73, promenade Leikin, arrêt postal 61
Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0R2

Que se passe-t-il après avoir présenté une demande?

Combien de temps faudra-t-il pour recevoir l'information?

• Les demandes sont traitées dans l'ordre dans lequel elles sont reçues. Nous recevons chaque jour un grand nombre de demandes et nous avons un arriéré important.
• Après que vous avez présenté votre demande, la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP de la GRC à Ottawa ouvre un dossier et détermine où les dossiers pertinents peuvent se trouver. On communique avec des employés de partout au pays et on leur demande de fournir des documents, selon la demande.
• La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP peut aussi demander une prolongation du délai s'il faut plus de temps pour recueillir l'information. La prolongation peut être accordée si elle est justifiée.
• Lorsqu'on leur en fait la demande, les employés de la GRC doivent chercher tous les documents pertinents, ce qui peut comprendre des fichiers électroniques, des notes consignées dans un calepin, des courriels, des messages texte, etc. puis les fournir à la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP à Ottawa aux fins de traitement.
• La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP peut tenir d'autres consultations, soit au sein de la GRC, soit avec des partenaires externes, selon les besoins.
• Tous les documents présentés sont par la suite examinés par la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP et les exemptions ou les exclusions sont appliquées, conformément à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels. La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP transmet ensuite les documents au demandeur.

Que recevrez-vous après le traitement de votre demande?

Une fois les documents traités, les demandeurs reçoivent ce qui suit :

• tous les documents qui peuvent être rendus publics et qui concernent votre demande;
• une lettre de réponse officielle qui cite toute exemption ou exclusion appliquée durant le traitement de votre demande, votre droit de présenter une plainte et le processus qui s'applique, ainsi que les coordonnées de l'analyste qui a traité votre demande au cas où vous auriez des questions ou des préoccupations.

Demandes de renseignement de tiers

• Les particuliers peuvent seulement présenter une demande en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels pour obtenir les renseignements personnels qui les concernent détenus par le gouvernement fédéral. Les renseignements personnels détenus par la GRC ne peuvent être communiqués qu'à la personne concernée, à moins que celle-ci ne donne son consentement écrit (autorisation) pour qu'une autre personne ou organisation (p. ex., une compagnie d'assurance ou un cabinet d'avocats) y ait accès.
• Pour avoir accès à des renseignements aussi complets que possible, les tiers demandeurs ont intérêt à obtenir le consentement écrit (autorisation) de toutes les personnes concernées par un dossier ou un document donné, à défaut de quoi la GRC ne sera en mesure de leur communiquer que des renseignements limités.
• Les demandes sont traitées selon le principe du premier arrivé, premier servi, et le délai de réponse peut varier selon leur portée et leur complexité. Le traitement ne sera pas plus rapide si la demande est envoyée par un tiers, tel qu'un avocat.

Demandes de renseignements personnels au sujet d'une personne décédée

Nous comprenons qu'il est difficile de perdre un être cher. Veuillez accepter nos condoléances. Nous ferons de notre mieux pour vous aider tout en continuant de nous conformer à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et à ses règlements. Les renseignements personnels que possède une institution fédérale au sujet d'une personne décédée sont considérés comme personnels pendant 20 ans après la date de son décès et ne peuvent pas être communiqués. Cela comprend les renseignements recueillis par la GRC au cours d'une enquête. Par conséquent, nous sommes souvent extrêmement limités dans ce que nous pouvons fournir.

• Administration d'une succession : Si vous êtes l'administrateur d'une succession, le Règlement sur la protection des renseignements personnels permet la communication de certains renseignements nécessaires aux fonctions de l'exécuteur testamentaire. Lorsque vous présentez votre demande, veuillez inclure des documents clairs qui indiquent que vous êtes l'administrateur et qui précisent en quoi ces renseignements sont nécessaires au règlement de la succession. Cela nous permettra de traiter votre dossier le plus rapidement possible en ces moments éprouvants.
• Conjoint(e)s ou membres de la famille : Si vous êtes un(e) conjoint(e) ou un membre de la famille qui doit avoir accès aux renseignements personnels d'une personne décédée qui ne sont pas liés à l'administration de l'État, la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels ne prévoit malheureusement aucune disposition permettant au conjoint ou à la famille d'une personne décédée d'obtenir les renseignements personnels à son sujet qui peuvent se trouver dans un dossier de la GRC.

Remarque

L'assignation ou l'ordonnance doit être adressée au détachement ou au service qui détient le document et non à la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP de la GRC.

Exigences relatives au consentement écrit

Le consentement écrit (autorisation) doit comprendre :

• le nom au complet et la date de naissance de la personne au sujet de laquelle des renseignements personnels sont demandés;
• le nom au complet de la personne ou de la société à laquelle le consentement est donné;
• une déclaration selon laquelle la personne visée par la demande consent librement et volontairement à ce que la GRC communique ses renseignements personnels à une autre personne ou société;
• la signature de la personne visée et la date du consentement;
• une photocopie d'une preuve d'identité de la personne qui donne son consentement (il doit s'agir d'une pièce d'identité avec photo délivrée par le gouvernement, sur laquelle la signature est visible).

Remarque

Vous devez inclure l'original du consentement écrit (autorisation) avec votre demande. Nous n'acceptons aucune télécopie ni photocopie.

Exemple de lettre de consentement

Date

Adresse (de la personne qui donne son consentement)

Déclaration de consentement à la consultation de renseignements personnels

JE, NOM AU COMPLET, né(e) le JOUR MOIS ANNÉE, consens librement et volontairement par la présente à ce que NOM AU COMPLET DU TIERS demande l'accès aux renseignements personnels en relation à (décrivez le type de renseignements que vous cherchez ou le numéro du dossier de la GRC, s'il est connu) que détient à mon sujet la Gendarmerie royale du Canada.

---

(Signature de la personne qui donne son consentement)

(Date du jour)

Plaintes

Toute personne qui s'adresse à un bureau d'AIPRP pour obtenir des renseignements personnels a le droit de déposer une plainte relativement à sa demande auprès du commissaire à la protection de la vie privée à l'adresse fournie ci-dessous, notamment si elle :

• • n'est pas satisfaite de la réponse obtenue de la GRC;
• • n'a pas reçu de réponse dans les délais prévus par la loi;
• • n'est pas satisfaite de la manière dont la GRC a recueilli, utilisé, communiqué, conservé ou éliminé ses renseignements personnels.

Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada
30, rue Victoria
Gatineau (Québec) K1A 1H3

Annual Reports to Parliament

Access to Information Act gives Canadian citizens and persons present in Canada the right to access information in federal government records. The Privacy Act provides citizens with the right to access personal information about themselves held by the government and the protection of that information against unauthorized use and disclosure.

The Annual Reports outlines the RCMP's administration of Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

If you are interested in obtaining a copy of a past report please send a request to ATIPB@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.

Annual reports

• Annual Report to Parliament 2021-2022 on the Access to Information Act
• Annual Report to Parliament 2021-2022 on the Administration of the Privacy Act
• Annual Report to Parliament 2020-2021 on the Access to Information Act
• Annual Report to Parliament 2020-2021 on the Administration of the Privacy Act

Rapports annuels au parlement

La Loi sur l'accès à l'information donne aux citoyens canadiens et aux personnes présentes au Canada le droit d'accès aux documents de l'administration fédérale. Quant à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, elle accorde à ces mêmes personnes le droit d'accès aux renseignements personnels qui les concernent détenus par le gouvernement, et à la protection de ces renseignements d'une utilisation et d'une communication non autorisées.

Les rapports annuels expliquent en quoi la GRC met en application la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.

Si vous souhaitez obtenir une copie d'un rapport antérieur, veuillez envoyer une demande à : ATIPB@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.

Rapports annuels

• Rapport annuel au parlement 2021-2022 sur la Loi sur l'accès à l'information
• Rapport annuel au parlement 2021-2022 de la GRC sur l'administration de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels
• Rapport annuel au parlement 2020-2021 sur la Loi sur l'accès à l'information
• Rapport annuel au parlement 2020-2021 de la GRC sur l'administration de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels

Présenter une demande en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information

On this page

• Avant de présenter une demande d'accès à l'information
• Présenter une demande en ligne
• Conseils pour présenter une demande
• Exemples de dossiers généraux
• Coût
• Retards
• Présenter une demande par courriel ou par la poste
• Que se passe-t-il après avoir présenté une demande?
• Que recevrez-vous après le traitement de votre demande?
• Demande d'information émanant de tiers
• Plaintes

Le but de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information est de conférer aux citoyennes et citoyens canadiens, aux résidentes et résidents permanents du Canada et à toutes les personnes physiques et morales présentes au Canada le droit de consulter les documents généraux qui relèvent d'une institution gouvernementale fédérale. Tous les documents du gouvernement peuvent faire l'objet d'une demande en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information. Elle ne prévoit aucune disposition obligeant les institutions à créer de nouveaux documents ou à répondre à des questions précises.

Si vous voulez demander des documents contenant des renseignements personnels à votre sujet, une demande faite en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels est le moyen le plus efficace étant donné qu'aucun coût ne s'y rattache et qu'une équipe spécialisée de la GRC traite ces demandes à l'interne. Si toutefois vous choisissez plutôt de demander des documents contenant des renseignements personnels à votre sujet en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information (ce qui vous coûtera 5 $), vous devrez fournir la même information que s'il s'agissait d'une demande en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.

Avant de présenter une demande d'accès à l'information

Avant de présenter une demande d'accès à l'information, vous pouvez faire une recherche dans les sommaires des demandes d'accès à l'information pour voir si l'information que vous cherchez se trouve dans des documents qui ont déjà été communiqués par le gouvernement du Canada.

Le Portail du gouvernement ouvert contient des demandes d'accès à l'information déjà remplies qui pourraient vous être utiles

Présenter une demande en ligne

Le moyen le plus facile de présenter une demande consiste à utiliser le service de demande d'accès à l'information et de protection des renseignements personnels (AIPRP) en ligne. C'est facile et pratique. Ce service vous permet de présenter des demandes de renseignements en ligne au lieu d'avoir à imprimer, à numériser et à envoyer un formulaire par courriel ou par la poste.

Le portail du gouvernement du Canada précise l'information que vous devez avoir en main avant de présenter votre demande.

Conseils pour présenter une demande

Pourquoi dois-je être précis lorsque je demande de l'information?

La GRC est une organisation multiterritoriale d'envergure qui comporte des bureaux et des détachements partout au Canada. Nous utilisons de nombreux systèmes de tenue de dossiers qui ne sont pas pleinement intégrés. Les recherches de dossiers ne sont pas effectuées par la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP à Ottawa; elles sont effectuées par la division, le détachement, le programme ou l'employé(e) qui détient les documents en question. Par conséquent, nous devons connaître l'emplacement géographique où votre demande sera principalement conservée afin de l'acheminer à l'endroit approprié. Pour cette raison, plus la demande est précise, plus nous pourrons la traiter rapidement.

Vous devez fournir suffisamment de détails sur les documents que vous souhaitez obtenir pour permettre à un(e) employé(e) d'expérience de la GRC de les trouver sans trop de difficultés. Par exemple :

• fournir une description claire et détaillée de l'information que vous cherchez;
• préciser la plage de dates et l'endroit (vous pouvez aussi indiquer les groupes, les détachements ou les divisions qui détiennent les documents);
• séparer vos demandes de façon à ce qu'il n'y qu'une seule demande.

Exemples de documents généraux :

Voici quelques renseignements non personnels pouvant être demandés :

• Notes de service, notes d'information
• Courriels
• Factures, budgets
• Ordres du jour de réunions
• Dossiers d'enquête
• Rapports de renseignements
• Rapports de vérification

Certains renseignements peuvent ne pas être diffusés pour protéger certains intérêts. Par exemple :

• Information sur la sécurité nationale et les méthodes d'application de la loi de nature délicate
• Secrets industriels
• Renseignements protégés par le secret professionnel de l'avocat
• Renseignements personnels
• Avis aux ministres

Coût

Des frais de demande de 5 $ s'appliquent. Veuillez inclure votre paiement sous forme d'argent comptant, de chèque ou de mandat (libellé à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada) avec votre demande.

Retards

La Sous-direction de l'accès à l'information et de la protection des renseignements personnels (AIPRP) de la GRC se heurte encore à des obstacles qui retardent les réponses aux demandes présentées en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information. Malgré nos obligations prévues par la loi, certaines réalités nous empêchent de répondre en moins de 30 jours.

Les délais peuvent être attribuables :

• aux besoins opérationnels qui peuvent exiger la réaffectation de membres et d'employés de la GRC (par exemple, des catastrophes naturelles comme des incendies de forêt ou des inondations, des enquêtes importantes et des événements majeurs);
• au fait que la GRC dépend encore grandement des processus papier et que des dossiers n'ont pas été numérisés;
• aux recherches approfondies qui sont requises (plus de 750 emplacements dans l'ensemble du Canada);
• aux effets à long terme de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Afin de contribuer à rationaliser votre demande, essayez d'être aussi circonscrit et précis que possible. Les responsables de l'AIPRP peuvent vous aider à aller à l'essentiel de ce que vous demandez afin que vous puissiez obtenir l'information demandée le plus rapidement possible.

La GRC reconnaît l'importance de respecter les délais prescrits et c'est pourquoi nous remanions actuellement notre programme. Nous réglerons ces problèmes en :

• consacrant des ressources à l'amélioration des délais de réponse;
• modernisant les politiques et les procédures du programme pour améliorer l'efficacité opérationnelle;
• • mettant en place des campagnes de formation et de sensibilisation des employés afin qu'ils comprennent l'obligation de répondre dans les prescrits.

Apprenez-en plus sur les efforts que nous déploierons au cours des cinq prochaines années dans la stratégie de modernisation et le plan d'action.

Présenter une demande par courriel ou par la poste

Si vous ne pouvez pas faire une demande en ligne, vous pouvez remplir le formulaire Demande d'accès à l'information (document PDF) de la GRC et envoyez-le par courriel au atipb@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ou la poste à l'adresse ci-dessous. Si vous ne pouvez pas télécharger ou imprimer le formulaire, vous pouvez envoyer une lettre qui indique clairement que votre demande est faite en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information ou de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnel et qui décrit ce qui suit :

• Les documents que vous cherchez. Il faut donner le plus de précisions possible;
• La méthode préférée pour recevoir les documents (copies envoyées par voie électronique ou par la poste);
• Votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone en cas de questions;
• Votre nom, adresse, ville, province ou territoire et code postal.

Postez votre formulaire ou votre lettre à l'adresse suivante :

Sous-direction de l'accès à l'information et de la protection des renseignements personnels de la GRC
73, promenade Leikin, arrêt postal 61
Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0R2

Que se passe-t-il après avoir présenté une demande?

Combien de temps faudra-t-il pour recevoir l'information?

• Les demandes sont traitées dans l'ordre dans lequel elles sont reçues. Nous recevons chaque jour un grand nombre de demandes et nous avons un arriéré important.
• Après avoir présenté une demande, la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP de la GRC à Ottawa ouvre un dossier et détermine où les dossiers pertinents peuvent se trouver. On communique avec des employés de partout au pays et on leur demande de fournir des documents, selon la demande.
• La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP peut aussi demander une prolongation du délai s'il faut plus de temps pour recueillir l'information. La prolongation peut être accordée si elle est justifiée.
• Lorsqu'on leur en fait la demande, les employés de la GRC doivent chercher tous les documents pertinents, ce qui peut comprendre des fichiers électroniques, des notes consignées dans un calepin, des courriels, des messages texte, etc. puis les fournir à la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP à Ottawa aux fins de traitement.
• La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP peut tenir d'autres consultations, soit au sein de la GRC, soit avec des partenaires externes, selon les besoins.
• Tous les documents présentés sont par la suite examinés par la Sous-direction de l'AIPRP et les exemptions ou les exclusions sont appliquées, conformément à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels. La Sous-direction de l'AIPRP transmettra ensuite les documents au demandeur.

Que recevrez-vous après le traitement de votre demande?

Une fois les documents traités, les demandeurs reçoivent ce qui suit :

• tous les documents qui peuvent être rendus publics et qui concernent votre demande;
• une lettre de réponse officielle qui cite toute exemption ou exclusion appliquée durant le traitement de votre demande, votre droit de présenter une plainte et le processus qui s'applique, ainsi que les coordonnées de l'analyste qui a traité votre demande au cas où vous auriez des questions à poser.

Demandes de renseignement de tiers

Si vous demandez des renseignements qui appartiennent à un tiers, vous devez présenter une lettre de consentement qui énonce clairement que vous avez droit de recevoir ces renseignements. Par tiers, on entend aussi un conjoint ou une conjointe ou une personne à charge qui pourrait aussi être impliquée dans les renseignements demandés. Sans cette approbation, la loi interdit à la GRC de transmettre des documents; il est par conséquent essentiel d'inclure cette lettre dans votre demande initiale pour nous aider à la traiter.

Plaintes

Toute personne qui s'adresse à un bureau d'AIPRP pour obtenir de l'information a le droit de déposer une plainte relativement à un des aspects de sa demande.

Voici des exemples :

• Satisfaction : La personne n'est pas satisfaite de la réponse obtenue de la GRC.
• Recherche incomplète/dossiers manquants : Ce ne sont pas tous les dossiers demandés qui ont été fournis.
• Retard : Le délai de 30 jours est expiré et la personne n'a pas reçu de réponse définitive.
• Exemptions/exclusions : Les dossiers ont été retenus en totalité ou en partie par l'institution.

Complaints concerning the processing of your information requests are to be submitted to the Information Commissioner within 60 days of receipt of the response letter. Should you decide to proceed with this right, your notice of complaint is to be addressed to:

Commissariat à l'information du Canada
30, rue Victoria, 7e étage
Gatineau (Québec) K1A 1H3
https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/fr/deposer-une-plainte

Should you have a complaint about how the RCMP collected, used, disclosed, retained and/or disposed of personal information, it should be directed to the Privacy Commissioner. Complaints related to privacy and privacy requests are to be addressed to:

Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée
30, rue Victoria
Gatineau (Québec) K1A 1H3
Déposer une plainte officielle concernant la protection de la vie privée - Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée

Making a request under the Access to Information Act

On this page

• Before making a request for information
• Submit your request online
• Tips for submitting your request
• Examples of general records
• Cost
• Delays
• Make a request by email or mail
• What happens once you make your request
• What you will receive after processing your request
• Requests for third-party information
• Complaints

The purpose of the Access to Information Act is to provide a right of access to general records under the control of a federal government institution to Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or any individual or corporation present in Canada. All government records may be requested under the Access to Information Act. It does not make provisions for institutions to create new records or to answer specific questions.

If you are looking to access your own personal information ,a Privacy Act request is the more effective route as there is no cost, and there is a dedicated team to process these requests within the RCMP. However, if you choose to request your personal information under the Access to Information Act cost $5) instead of the Privacy Act, you will need to provide the same information as for a Privacy Act request.

Before making a request for information

Before making an access to information request, you can search the summaries of access to information requests for records that have already been released by the Government of Canada to see if you can find what you are looking for there.

Visiting the government's Open Government Portal for previously completed Access to Information requests.

Submit your request online

The easiest way to submit a request is by using the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request service. It's fast and convenient. This service allows you to make online requests for information instead of having to print, scan, mail or email a paper form.

The Government of Canada's online portal lists the information you should have on hand before submitting your request.

Tips for submitting for your request

Why do I need to be precise when requesting information

The RCMP is a large, multi-jurisdictional organization with offices and detachments across Canada. We use many different record-keeping systems that are not fully integrated. Searches for records are not done by the ATIP Branch in Ottawa; they are done by the division, detachment, program or employee who holds the records in question. As such, we need to understand the geographic location where your request will primarily be held in order to task it appropriately. For this reason, the more precise the request is, the faster we can respond.

You must include enough information about the records you wish to access to allow an experienced employee of the RCMP, with reasonable effort, to find the records being requested. For example:

• provide a clear and detailed description of the information you are looking for
• give a date range and location (you can also include the units, detachments and/or divisions that hold the records)
• separate your requests so that it's a single request

Examples of general records

Some non-personal information that can be requested includes:

• memoranda, briefing notes
• emails
• invoices, budgets
• meeting agendas
• investigation files
• intelligence reports
• audit reports

Some documents may not be released to protect certain interests. For example:

• information on national security and sensitive law enforcement methods
• trade secrets
• solicitor-client privilege
• personal information
• advice to Ministers

Cost

There is a $5.00 application fee. Please include payment by cash, cheque or money order (payable to the Receiver General of Canada) with your request.

Delays

The RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch continues to face challenges that result in response delays to requests submitted under the Access to Information Act. Despite our legislative responsibilities, certain realities prevent us from responding in under 30 days.

Delays can be due to:

• operational requirements that call for RCMP members and employees to be redeployed (for instance, natural disasters like wildfires and flooding, significant investigations, and major events, to name just a few)
• the fact that the RCMP still relies heavily on paper-based processes, with records that have not be digitized
• the extensive search required (more than 750 locations throughout Canada)
• the long term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To help streamline your request, try and be as focused and precise as possible. ATIP officials are here to help you get to the core of what you are requesting, in order to assist you to get the information you are requesting as quickly as possible.

The RCMP recognizes the importance of complying with legislated timelines. That is why we are currently overhauling our program and addressing these issues by:

• devoting resources to improve the timeliness of responses
• modernizing policies and procedures within the program to enhance operational efficiency
• expanding training and awareness campaigns for personnel to ensure they understand the obligation to respond within legislated timeframes.

Read the details of our efforts for the next five years in the modernization strategy and action plan.

Make a request by email or mail

If you can't make a request online, you can complete the RCMP's Access to Information Request Form and email it to atipb@rcmp-grc.gc.ca or mail it to the address below. If you can't download or print the form, you may also submit a letter clearly indicating that your request is being made under the Access to Information Act and describe the following:

• The records you are seeking. Be as specific as possible.
• Your preferred method of receiving the records (copies sent electronically or by mail).
• Your email address or telephone number in case we need clarification.
• Your name, street address, city or town, province or territory and postal code.

Mail your form or letter to:

RCMP Access to Information and Privacy Branch
73 Leikin Drive, Mail Stop #61
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2

What happens once you make your request

How long will it take to receive information?

• Requests are handled in the order in which they are received. We receive a large number of requests on a daily basis and have a significant backlog.
• Once you make your request, the RCMP's ATIP Branch in Ottawa opens a file and identifies where relevant records may be located. Employees located across the country are contacted and asked to provide material, depending on the request.
• The ATIP Branch may also request an extension if more time is needed to collect the information. It can be granted provided the extension is justified.
• Once tasked, RCMP employees must search for all relevant material, which can include electronic files, notebook entries, emails, text messages, etc., and supply them to the ATIP Branch in Ottawa for processing.
• The ATIP Branch may conduct additional consultations, either within the RCMP or with external partners, as needed.
• All of the submitted material is then reviewed by the ATIP Branch, and exemptions and/or exclusions are applied, as outlined by the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. The ATIP Branch will then release the material to the requester.

What will you receive after processing your request

After the materials have been processed, requesters receive the following:

• any releasable documents relevant to your request
• a formal response letter citing any exemptions or exclusions applied during the processing of your request, your right to make a complaint and the relevant process, and contact information for the analyst who processed your request should you have any additional questions or concerns.

Requests for third-party information

If you are requesting information that belongs to a third-party, a consent letter clearly stating that you are entitled to receive this information is required. This would also include a spouse, or dependent who may also be involved in the requested information. Without this approval, the RCMP is prohibited by law to release the records so including this as part of your initial request is essential to help us process your request.

Complaints

Anyone requesting information from an ATIP office has the right to file a complaint on any aspect of their request.

Examples can include:

• Satisfaction: Are not satisfied with the response they received from the RCMP.
• Incomplete search/missing records: Not all of the requested records were provided.
• Delay: The 30-day time period has elapsed and a final response has not been received.
• Exemptions/exclusions: The records were entirely or partially withheld by the institution.

Complaints concerning the processing of your information requests are to be submitted to the Information Commissioner within 60 days of receipt of the response letter. Should you decide to proceed with this right, your notice of complaint is to be addressed to:

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
30 Victoria Street, 7th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 1H3

Should you have a complaint about how the RCMP collected, used, disclosed, retained and/or disposed of personal information, it should be directed to the Privacy Commissioner. Complaints related to privacy and privacy requests are to be addressed to:

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
30 Victoria Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 1H3
File a formal privacy complaint - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Access to Information and Privacy

What type of information are you requesting?

Personal information

Are you looking to access personal information the RCMP has on record about you?

Make a Privacy Act request. There is no cost for these requests.

Other RCMP records

Are you looking to access general records the RCMP has that is not personal in nature, or is personal in nature, but is not about you?

Make an Access to Information Act request. There is a $5 processing fee for each request.

Important

• Online request: Using the online request service in a convenient way to get requests submitted more quickly and easily, while simplifying the application process. Apply online to save time and postage.
• Personal information: Any information that may identify an individual is considered personal information. Even if an individual's name is not used, we are dealing with personal information if we can accumulate enough information to identify someone.
• Obtaining consent: You must obtain the written consent (permission) of any individual whose personal information you are requesting. In the case of a deceased person, you must provide a death certificate.
• Accessing information: Making a request to access information under either Act does not guarantee that you will receive all the information or records you have requested. The RCMP takes into account privacy and security considerations, among other elements, when reviewing requests. This may prevent us from releasing certain information.

Contact us

The RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch responds to requests made under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act for information held by the RCMP.

If you have questions about your request or would like more information, please contact us at:

Email: atipb@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Phone: 1-855-629-5877 or 613-843-6800

Related links

• Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
• Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
• Access to Information Act
• Privacy Act
• previous
• 149
• 150
• 151
• 152
• 153
• 154
• 155
• 156
• 157
• next
Top of page

Date modified:

1969-12-31