To: 

· Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Michael Duheme 

· Commanding Officer, RCMP “E” Division (British Columbia), Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald 

· Officer in Charge – Ridge Meadows RCMP, Inspector Adam Gander 

· Officer in Charge – Langley RCMP, Superintendent Harm Dosange 

· Chair for Civilian Review & Complaints Commission for the RCMP, Brent Cotter 

· Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness – Govt of Canada, The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree 

· Minister of Public Safety & Solicitor General – Govt of BC, Nina Krieger 

· Member of Parliament for Maple Ridge – Mission, Marc Dalton 

· Member of Parliament for Langley – Fraser Heights, Tako van Popta 

· Member of the Legislative Assembly for Ridge Meadows, Lisa Beare 

· Member of the Legislative Assembly for Langley, Jody Toor 
 
 
 
I. PREAMBLE – A SYSTEM THAT FAILS BEFORE BLOOD IS DRAWN 

We, the undersigned, are residents of British Columbia and Canada who have witnessed and been directly harmed by a catastrophic failure in the RCMP’s response to domestic violence. The incident described below is not an anomaly. It is the predictable result of policies that treat non-physical abuse as less serious, dismiss the testimony of women and people of colour, and permit officers with demonstrated bias and dangerous attitudes to remain on frontline domestic violence calls. 

A woman called for help because her emotional & physical safety were at stake with her life being threatened. The police arrived, sided with the abuser, and left her unprotected. The abuser then stalked her, drove drunk through a neighbourhood to find her, and later destroyed her apartment, including punching holes in walls and shattering glass, while abusing his dog. Only then—after property destruction and animal abuse—was a meaningful police response apparently taken. The message sent was unmistakable: in Langley or Ridge Meadows, a woman must be physically broken or her home destroyed before the RCMP will act. 

This petition demands an end to that reality. It demands policy, training, and oversight changes that ensure the RCMP treats domestic violence as the lethal pattern it is—starting from the very first death threat, not the first visible wound. 
 
 

II. THE INCIDENT – A CASE STUDY IN SYSTEMIC FAILURE 
 

On Saturday July 11, 2026 Langley RCMP dispatched an officer and a corporal. Despite a clear death threat—an offence under s.264.1 of the Criminal Code—and despite a hate-motivated dehumanization that indicated extreme risk, the corporal on scene downplayed the entire situation. He stated, in effect, that it was not abusive because there was no physical violence. He ordered the parties to separate for 24 hours but took no steps to remove the abuser from the victim’s apartment, even though she was the sole leaseholder and he was a guest who had threatened her life.

The officers were asked what was done in terms of a risk assessment, the corporal just stated that one was done and he was satisfied with the risk levels. When the brother asked the corporal, “Why does it seem like women have to get hurt or killed before you can do anything to protect them?”, the corporal became aggressively defensive. He raised his voice at a concerned family member, shouting, “What about men too?!” and escalating tension rather than de-escalating it. A white partner of the brother then intervened and was immediately met with basic respect that had been denied to the others, exposing a stark racial disparity in demeanor from the officer. 

A second 911 call was made. The caller specifically requested that the corporal not be dispatched, a request the 911 operator empathetically supported. A separate RCMP response occurred after the abuser followed the victim to their new location, causing a domestic disturbance in a quiet neighbourhood. Upon finally returning to her apartment, the victim found every room vandalised-walls punched in, shattered glass across the stove, and the dog cowering in terror after clearly being abused. 

This series of events reveals a complete breakdown at every level: a frontline officer who lacks the competence, temperament, and apparent impartiality to handle domestic violence calls, and a system that has no mandatory safeguard to prevent such an officer from being the first and nearly the last-responder.

III. SYSTEMIC FAILURES IDENTIFIED 
 

The myth of “not physical yet”  

RCMP members are permitted—or at least not prevented—from dismissing non-physical abuse, coercive control, and explicit death threats as unworthy of arrest or removal. This is a lethal misinterpretation of the law. Uttering threats is a criminal offence; so is criminal harassment. No bruise is required. 
 
 
No guaranteed gender- or trauma-informed presence on scene 

There is no policy ensuring that at least one female officer, or an officer with specialist domestic violence training, attends every domestic violence call. Victims are left alone with officers who may not understand their terror, re-traumatizing them and driving them back to the abuser. 
 
 
Zero mandatory co-response with domestic violence organizations  

Police attend alone, without a trained advocate from a local DV society. This forces victims to navigate a criminal justice environment without a single support person who knows the dynamics of trauma bonding and coercive control. It isolates victims and increases the likelihood of a botched response. 
 
 
Officer bias, racism, and homophobia left unchecked 

An officer who becomes aggressive when questioned, who shouts “What about men?” while a woman’s life is at risk, and who demonstrably treats people of colour with less respect than white bystanders, is a danger to the public. The existence of such officers on active duty without immediate removal from sensitive call types represents a total failure of supervision and professional standards. 
 
 
No automatic protection of the victim’s residence 

When a victim is the sole legal occupant and an abuser is a guest, there is no clear protocol to remove the abuser from the home at the moment of the threat. This forces victims to choose between homelessness and returning to the person who promised to kill them. 
 

 
IV. DEMANDS FOR REFORM  

We, the undersigned, call for the following binding policy and legislative changes, to be implemented fully within 12 months, and initial rollout within 3 months of receiving this request:  
Immediate Operational Policy Changes by the RCMP 
 
A. Mandatory arrest and removal protocol for death threats 

Any domestic violence call involving a reported threat to life shall result in the abuser being removed from the scene and arrested for uttering threats, regardless of the presence of physical injury. The victim’s statement shall be taken as sufficient grounds for apprehension of a breach of the peace or arrest, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Victims’ Rights. 
 
B. Gender and trauma-informed response teams 

Every RCMP detachment shall adopt a policy that at least one officer responding to a domestic violence call is female and/or has completed advanced trauma-informed domestic violence training, unless exigent circumstances make this impossible and the reason is documented. The goal is to end the routine all-male response that retraumatizes female victims. 
 
C. Mandatory domestic violence advocate co-response 

RCMP shall enter into a formal Memoranda of Understanding with local domestic violence organizations in every detachment area. A trained DV advocate shall be dispatched alongside officers to every domestic violence call, led by the advocate’s expertise in safety planning and victim support, with police providing the lawful authority and physical protection. This model has been proven in jurisdictions across the world and must become standard. 
 
D. Exclusive occupancy enforcement

Where the victim is the sole legal tenant, RCMP members shall, upon request and in the presence of a threat, immediately remove the abuser as a trespasser and assist the victim in securing the property. They shall inform the victim of her right to change locks and provide a police report number to facilitate emergency locksmith or landlord assistance. 

E. Accountability for the Officer Involved 
 
Immediate removal from frontline DV duties and investigation - The corporal involved in the initial response must be temporarily removed from any duties involving domestic violence, Indigenous persons, or visible minorities pending a full investigation by the CRCC and the RCMP’s Professional Responsibility Unit. His conduct—minimizing a death threat, escalating aggression, displaying racial bias, and failing to protect the victim—demands nothing less.

F. Legislative and Structural Change 
 
Amend the RCMP Act to mandate domestic violence standards  — The federal government must enshrine minimum standards for domestic violence response into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, including the co-response and gender-inclusive deployment requirements set out above. These cannot be left to the discretion of individual detachments. 
 
Civilian oversight of DV call reviews — Every domestic violence call that does not result in charges shall be automatically reviewed by an independent civilian panel that includes DV survivors and representatives of Indigenous and LGBTQ+ organizations. This panel shall have the authority to recommend discipline and policy changes. 
 
 
  
V. WHAT WE ASK OF YOU 
 

· RCMP Leadership: Issue an immediate directive to Langley & Ridge Meadows and all E Division detachments reinforcing that uttering threats is a criminal offence requiring arrest, and that the safety of the victim’s residence is paramount. 

· CRCC: Open a public interest investigation into the systemic failures in RCMP domestic violence response, using this case as a primary exhibit. 

· Elected Officials: Call the Minister of Public Safety before parliamentary or legislative committees to answer why women and LGBTQ+ people are told they must be physically battered before police will protect them. 

This petition is submitted in the memory of every woman and LGBTQ+ person who did not survive because “it wasn’t physical yet.” We refuse to allow our family member to become one of them. We demand a police service that protects the living, not one that merely documents the dead.