This page has been archived.
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
I am pleased to present the Military Police Complaints Commission's 2006-07 Departmental Performance Report.
The Military Police Complaints Commission (Commission) was established in December 1999 to provide independent, civilian oversight of Canada's military police service. The Commission oversees the military police complaints process. More specifically, it monitors the investigation and disposition of complaints about the military police by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, reviews such dispositions when asked by the complainant, independently investigates such complaints as appropriate in the public interest, including by means of public hearings, and investigates allegations of interference in military police investigations. Operating independently from both the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, the Commission ensures the complaints process is accessible, fair and transparent to all concerned.
This past year has been an interesting and eventful year not only for the Commission but for all oversight agencies of Canada's police and security agencies. The "Arar Inquiry", the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, has brought civilian oversight of police well into the forefront, not only in Canada, but internationally. Excellence in the discharge of our mandate has never been more important.
It has been a challenging year but the Commission has responded well and positively. The completion of several investigations during the past year has resulted in recommendations and change that will have significant, long-term impact on military police practices. The investigation of interference complaints has resulted in a revision by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal of the Military Police Policies and Technical Procedures, clarifying the role and responsibilities of military police supervisors in respect of supervisory interventions and defining more precisely the proper relations between the military police and the chain of command. This in turn should contribute to improvement in their relationships and the performance of their respective duties.
It has been a busy year. The number of investigations by the Commission doubled from the previous year. In addition, the Commission undertook the first public hearing in its seven-year history and initiated three new public interest investigations into especially serious or broadly publicized complaints about military police conduct. Again, the Commission has responded well and positively to the increase in the volume and complexity of the complaints received and investigated. The introduction of a new service standard and compliance mechanism will result in complaints being resolved in less time than previously. Quality of investigation was strengthened with the introduction of new investigative procedures. Report writing was also addressed. Unnecessary steps in the reporting process were eliminated when there are no investigative findings requiring a response from Canadian Forces authorities. As well, reports requiring a response to substantive findings and recommendations have been simplified and efforts made to better highlight the key issues that need to be addressed.
The Commission remains committed to the program goal of increasing awareness, within the ever changing military police community, of the Commission, the complaints process and the role of the Commission in assuring the military police of their rights in the process. The increased investigative workload, however, took priority and the outreach program was less active this year than last. Workload permitting, the outreach program will be restored to its former level (5 to 7 base visits annually) in 2007-2008.
The Commission like most small agencies faces a constant challenge with staff turnover. At the end of 2006–2007, the Commission was working on staffing actions affecting almost a third of its FTEs. In a micro organization with less than 20 FTEs, the organizational structure is basically flat. As a result, promotions, for the most part, will move an individual out of not up in the Commission. To combat this situation, current job descriptions are being carefully re-evaluated to see precisely what responsibilities are needed, can be realigned or can be consolidated. By creating a work environment that is more stimulating and challenging, the Commission will be able to retain its employees for a longer period of time, stabilize the work environment and improve on the already high quality of service provided.
As a final comment, I would add that the Commission is committed to protecting and enhancing the complaints process and by so doing will provide assurance to members of the Canadian Forces and all Canadians that they are being served by a military police service of the highest calibre.
Peter A. Tinsley
Chair
I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2006-07 Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the Military Police Complaints Commission.
This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2006–2007 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:
Peter A. Tinsley
Chair
In an effort to render our public reporting more effective, crosswalk information is provided explaining more fully and completely the program activity architecture.
2005–2006 | 2006–2007 | |
---|---|---|
Operations | 2.4 | N/A |
Legal Services | 1.7 | N/A |
Complaints Resolution | N/A | 3.4 |
The Commission restructured its program activities, with the approval of Treasury Board, commencing in the 2006–2007 fiscal year. The restructuring involved merging its two operational program activities, Operations and Legal Services, to form a single program activity called Complaints Resolution. Complaints Resolution more accurately reflects the operational mandate of the Commission — to successfully resolve complaints about the conduct of military police members as well as complaints of interference with military police investigations.
The Commission was established by the Government of Canada on December 1, 1999 to provide independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces military police. It was created to be an independent public agency, accountable, through the Minister of National Defence, to Parliament.
The Commission's role is to inquire into complaints independently and impartially and to arrive at objective findings and recommendations based on the information provided by complainants, the subjects of complaints, witnesses and others who may assist in uncovering the truth concerning the events being investigated. The Commission does not act as an advocate for either side in the complaint process.
The Commission formulates recommendations based on the findings of its independent and impartial reviews and investigations of complaints. Although not binding, if the authority responsible for dealing with these recommendations does not act on them, the reasons for not acting must be provided to the Chair and the Minister of National Defence. While the Chair's recommendations may result in the censuring of the conduct of those who are the subject of a complaint, the recommendations are directed first and foremost at correcting any systemic problem that may have played a part in allowing the situation that gave rise to a complaint in the first instance.
The Commission oversees and reviews complaints about the conduct of members of the military police in the performance of their policing duties and functions, and handles complaints of interference from members of the military police who believe that another member of the Canadian Forces or a senior official of the Department of National Defence has improperly interfered with, or attempted to influence, a police investigation.
The Commission is an organization that exhibits fairness and impartiality in the performance of its investigations and reviews, inspires trust in the results of its decision-making, and contributes to a climate of confidence in military policing.
The Commission has one strategic outcome: to promote and ensure the highest standards of conduct of military police in the performance of policing duties, and to discourage improper interference in any military police investigation.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
3,416 | 3,539 | 2,837 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
16 | 16 | - |
Name | Type |
---|---|
1. Conduct a detailed assessment of the complaints handling process | Ongoing |
2. Implement the informal resolution initiative and adopt best practices in that regard | New |
3. Implement a comprehensive performance measurement framework | Previously Committed |
4. Hold meetings and working sessions with key Canadian Forces stakeholders | Ongoing |
5. Continue the outreach initiative and make presentations to various stakeholders | Ongoing |
6. Publish articles in journals, newspapers and magazines | Ongoing |
7. Emphasize professional development of employees | Ongoing |
8. Improve internal communications | Ongoing |
9. Correct shortcomings identified in the 2005 Public Service survey | New |
10. Train personnel on meeting the compliance requirements of the central agencies | New |
11. Implement the internal audit plan by carrying out risk-based audits | Ongoing |
Status on Performance 2006–2007 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Strategic Outcome: to promote and ensure the highest standards of conduct of military police in the performance of policing duties, and to discourage improper interference in any military police investigation. |
||||
Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes: Safe and Secure Communities |
||||
Priority | Program Activity and Expected Results | Performance Status | Planned Spending | Actual Spending |
1. Conduct a detailed assessment of the complaints handling process | Complaints Resolution cases processed more expeditiously | Successfully met | 75 | Internally resourced |
2. Implement the informal resolution initiative and adopt best practices in that regard | Complaints Resolution suitable cases processed more expeditiously |
Not met | 100 | - |
3.Implement a comprehensive performance measurement framework | Complaints Resolution clearly identified and effective targets and measures | Partially met | 75 | internally resourced |
4. Hold meetings and working sessions with key Canadian Forces stakeholders | Complaints Resolution Improved working relationships, more effective and timely complaints resolution | Successfully met | 75 | 1 |
5. Publish articles in journals, newspapers and magazines | Complaints Resolution Enhanced awareness of the role, mandate | Deferred — ample media coverage | 15 | |
6. Emphasize professional development | Complaints Resolution Well-trained, motivated and committed workforce, positive efforts are appropriately acknowledged | Partially met | 75 | 24 |
7. Continue to work with employees and their representatives to improve internal communications | Complaints Resolution Better informed workforce, greater appreciation of demands on the Commission and what it must do to be successful, fostering a greater commitment to performance. | Successfully met | 10 | internally resourced |
8. Assess the findings of the 2005 Public Service survey and correct any shortcomings | Complaints Resolution Employee concerns quickly addressed and resolved | Successfully met | 20 | internally resourced |
9. Train personnel on central agency and Commission compliance requirements | Complaints Resolution Improved compliance | Successfully met | 20 | internally resourced |
10. Implement the internal audit plan and carry out risk-based audits | Complaints Resolution Improved resource management | Deferred — External Audit Conducted | 30 |
The Commission was established in December 1999 to provided independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence. By its efforts, the Commission contributes to the professionalism of the military police, helping to ensure the military police continue to enjoy the confidence of the Canadian Forces, and that of the Department of National Defence and of all Canadians.
To appreciate the performance, it is necessary to appreciate the process. The Commission is mandated to monitor the investigation and disposition of complaints about military police conduct by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, to independently investigate such complaints, as appropriate, and to investigate allegations of interference in military police investigations. An overview of each complaints process is set out below.
The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM), the chief of military police, has primary responsibility for the investigation of complaints about the conduct of military police. The Commission has the authority to monitor the investigation and disposition of the complaints by the CFPM and to independently investigate complaints as appropriate, such as upon request of the complainant.
The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction for the investigation of complaints of interference in a military police investigation.
When the Chair determines it is in the public interest, the Commission can exercise its power to assume immediate responsibility for the investigation of a conduct complaint and, if warranted, to hold a public hearing.
The Commission's involvement in investigating complaints about police conduct or interference complaints results in the Chair preparing reports (interim and final) of findings and recommendations. The interim report requires a response from a senior designated National Defence or Canadian Forces official regarding the action taken or planned for each of the recommendations. Such recommendations, and the responses to them, strengthen the professionalism of Canada's military policing and help to guarantee the integrity and independence of the military police.
One challenge that the Commission faces on an ongoing basis, and a peculiarity of its operating environment, is the lack of control over the volume and complexity of the cases received. It is also impossible to definitely predict how many complaints will be deemed to be in the public interest — complaints that may result in more costly public interest investigations or hearings by the Commission. Some complaints are straightforward, with interviews involving two or three people, often in the same location, and can be concluded in a couple of weeks. Other complaints may involve interviewing more than a dozen individuals spread all across the country, including thousands and thousands of pages of documentary evidence and, accordingly, will only be concluded after several months. Consequently, the Commission must manage its activities and allocate its resources to accommodate the ebb and flow of complaints in a cost-effective manner.
A constant challenge for the Commission is maintaining operational capability. It is a complex problem. Retention is a concern. In a "micro-agency" of 16 people, where most of the employees have distinct responsibilities and skill sets, staff turnover represents a major problem to maintaining service delivery. In addition, the organization is relatively flat and as such is unable to provide a career path for most employees. To get ahead for most employees, it means leaving the organization. Maintaining the desired level of expertise within the organization is another concern. Employees need to be trained and have their skill sets updated but turnover and operational demands can oftentimes prevent training plans from being realized.
The Commission is in the process of implementing the Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) policy. In the first step of the five step implementation of the policy, the Treasury Board recently approved the Commission's amended Strategic Outcome and amended Program Activity Architecture. The Commission is now in the process of developing and documenting a more rigorous performance measurement framework and describing more fully the governance structure (Step 2 in the implementation of the MRRS policy).
The Commission measures its performance against the achievement of its strategic outcome in two very critical areas — are complaints resolved in a fair and timely manner and are recommendations resulting from investigations implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces. In both areas, the Commission is performing well. Concerning fairness, to date, there have been no judicial reviews requested of any of the Commission's decisions. And as noted below, the Commission's recommendations are being implemented. As for timeliness, the time involved in resolving complaints is dropping. With regard to the acceptance and implementation of recommendations, it should be noted that the Notice of Action, the official response to the Interim Report, outlines what action, if any, has been or will be taken in response to the Commission's recommendations. For the most part, prior to the issuance of the Final Report, the Commission, within the limits imposed by the Privacy Act, satisfies itself that its recommendations have been implemented. For the 2007 fiscal year, 100% of the Commission's recommendations have been accepted and implemented.
The Government is in the process of implementing a number of government-wide initiatives that have had, are having and will continue to have a significant impact on workload. Proactive disclosure, initiatives under the Management, Resources and Results Structure policy, initiatives under management accountability framework, and implementation of human resources modernization, for example, are creating significant new workloads without any increase in resources to help address these workloads. It is becoming increasingly difficult to focus already scarce resources on mandate achievement when, more and more, they are being consumed by other requirements.
In addition to its primary mandate, the Commission wanted to address the following during the fiscal year:
In summary, the Commission accomplished the majority of what it intended to do. A brief summary of some of its major accomplishments will illustrate this positive performance.
Details of the Commission's case activities can be found on the website at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
The Commission learned that it has to get better with workload forecasting and resource requirements. Investigations do not proceed at a steady rate; there are frequent stops and starts and investigation costs and time-frames need to be more closely monitored, especially as the year-end approaches.
Staff turnover is a problem. Even the best human resource planning can not overcome the fact that the Commission is a small organization. From the organization chart in Section III, it is evident that for only a few of the positions is there a potential career path. For all the others, the positions are stand-alone. The Commission must manage the reality that these employees will leave the Commission when promotions are offered elsewhere. The Commission strives to create a working environment that is both challenging and rewarding and that employees will remain a minimum of 2 years, there are no guarantees. When a promotion opportunity arrives, the employee will leave. At the end of March, 2007, there were staffing actions in progress on 39% of the Commission's positions.