The RCMP’s controversial and heavily-criticized Community Response Unit (CRU-BC) – formerly known as the Community-Industry Response Group (“C-IRG”) – was recently back in the headlines as it will be policing opposition to BC’s new and widely opposed resource and infrastructure “fast-tracking” laws.  

An internal RCMP background document obtained by The Breach reveals that CRU-BC is participating in two secretive provincial committees, the Critical Incident Secretariat and the Civil Disobedience/Public Order, each focused on “coordination, planning, and resource readiness” across BC.  

This is disturbing news given that the RCMP’s oversight body, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC), has yet to complete its systemic investigation of the activities and operations of CRU in BC. This investigation stems from hundreds of formal complaints about CRU’s excessive use of force, abuse of authority, and racism during its enforcement of injunction orders obtained by private corporations to protect contested pipeline projects and old-growth logging operations, most notably at Fairy Creek.  

Why I submitted my own complaint against the RCMP 

Back in 2023, I submitted a complaint to CRCC about the actions of (then) C-IRG in the Caycuse watershed near Fairy Creek. My visit to the Caycuse Valley in June 2021, followed an open letter we sent to RCMP and the province raising concerns about C-IRG’s conduct, particularly that it had established an exclusion zone blocking public and media access and an emergency route of the Ditidaht First Nation. 

My complaint focused on an interaction between me and two officers, Staff Sergeant Brenton Brady and Corporal Andrew Blakeman, at this exclusion zone.  

When I was at camp with Indigenous land defenders, I heard stories about people being stopped by the RCMP. So, when I encountered the RCMP checkpoint for myself I felt compelled to confront the officers and challenge the exclusion zone, as I was sure they did not have the legal authority to block access to the road or the area based on the terms of the injunction order.  

RCMP admits they “overstepped authority” at Fairy Creek 

Almost two years after I submitted my complaint, I received a final report detailing the findings of the investigation from Inspector Terry Christiansen, Conduct Authority “E” Division RCMP. Buried deep within the report, Inspector Christiansen agreed with the investigator’s finding that the RCMP overstepped its authority, stating that

“police erred in establishing an exclusion zone that was beyond the scope of the authority granted by the injunction order, and which was not aligned with the expectations of the courts.”  

Inspector Christiansen further agreed that my rights were violated

“as well as the rights of the protesters, journalists and other members of the public, including any members of the Pacheedaht and Ditidaht First Nations who were restricted from accessing larger areas of the Fairy Creek watershed than may have otherwise been acceptable to the CRCC and the courts.”

This admission is an unusual win – very rarely does RCMP come clean about their wrongdoing. Not only does this confirm that C-IRG exceeded the scope of an injunction obtained by private company, Teal Jones, but it shows that they blocked the road to conceal active logging operations from the public. This confirmed my suspicions that the RCMP were not merely acting in service of the injunction, but in support of private interests. 

As for Sgt. Brady and Cpl. Blakeman, they managed to evade consequences because it was determined that they were simply following their orders.  

Instead, I received an apology on behalf of the RCMP for any “distress or discomfort” I may have experienced. An individual apology does not provide any true accountability for the actions of C-IRG, nor inspire confidence that C-IRG — a unit already heavily-criticized for violent and unlawful conduct — will not “overstep their authority” again.  

Not good enough  

Although BCCLA welcomes the RCMP’s findings as it relates to the unlawful exclusion zone, we were left dismayed by many of Inspector Christiansen’s comments in the Final Report regarding my “suspicious demeanor” during the interaction with the Officers. People who understand the law and their rights should not be treated as if they are a threat.  

Likewise, we are dissatisfied by the finding that the Officers did not violate my privacy rights when they recorded my license plate with the intent to find out who they were “dealing with”. We maintain that the Officers did not have a justifiable reason for recording my personal information.  

As a result, I requested CRCC to conduct a review of RCMP’s handling of my complaint.   

What’s going on at the CRCC? No Decision Makers, No Accountability 

Although I received confirmation from the CRCC that it accepted my Request for Review, CRCC does not currently have a Chairperson – the position has been vacant since at least January 6, 2025. When I emailed CRCC to inquire about how that might affect the review process, the CRCC Program Officer responded saying:  

Please also note that the Commission does not currently have a Chairperson or Member appointed by the Governor in Council. Decisions about complaints reviewed by the Commission are made by the Chairperson or Commission Members. While Commission staff has reviewed the materials relevant to your complaint and ensured that all relevant evidence has been obtained, the Commission will not be able to issue a report about your complaint until a decision maker is appointed.   

This signals that the federal government is not prioritizing even the appearance of police accountability for Canada’s national police service. 

In the wake of the federal and BC and Ontario’s misguided decisions to legislate “fast-tracked” resource extraction and development, seemingly at all costs, the news of CRU-BC’s role is extra chilling. With the unacceptable gap in accountability at CRCC, no decision has been issued with respect to the systemic investigation into C-IRG(CRU), yet the government continues to utilize and invest in the controversial unit as a key tool in supressing freedom of expression and Indigenous resistance.  

Recent history has shown that Indigenous-led land and water defence, has been met with particularly heavy-handed, state-sanctioned militarized violence under the guise of what is purportedly in Canada’s “national interest” but is in effect ongoing colonization. 

BCCLA will remain vigilant and continue to support those who are exercising their inherent and Charter-protected rights on the frontlines of land defence, at the necessary intersection of human rights and environmental protection.