ARCHIVED - Military Police Complaints Commission - Report

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Chairperson’s Message

I am pleased to present the Military Police Complaints Commission’s (the Commission) 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report (DPR).

The Commission was established by the Government of Canada to provide independent civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police, effective December 1, 1999. This was executed by an amendment to the National Defence Act, Part IV of which sets out the full mandate of the Commission and how complaints are to be handled. As stated in Issue Paper No. 8, which accompanied the Bill that created the Commission, its role is “to provide for greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police investigations.”

The Commission identified two priorities in its 2010-11 Report on Plans and Priorities: improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process and improving governance.

The Commission took a number of important initiatives to address these two priorities while at the same time managing the challenges of an increasingly public profile and workload associated with the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing into a “failure to investigate” complaint by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. This complaint alleged members of the Military Police failed to investigate Canadian Forces Commanders having authority for transferring detainees to the Afghanistan authorities in the face of a known risk of torture.

In 2010, the Commission continued its work on the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing. The Commission entered its final hearings stage from November 15 to December 2, 2010, followed by receipt of written submissions in late January 2011 and oral submissions on February 2, 2011. Based on its consideration of these submissions along with the whole of evidence, the Commission began drafting the Interim Report.

In addition, the Commission dealt with two non-Afghanistan detainee-related judicial review applications of the Commission’s final reports before the Federal Court. The Commission also prepared its submissions for the Second Five Year Review of the National Defence Act while meeting the many demands of an extremely complex caseload involving investigations of individual complaint files.

During 2010-11, the Commission delivered its Outreach Program to six Canadian Forces bases to increase awareness in the military police community regarding the Commission’s mandate and complaints’ resolution processes. Through these visits, further insight was gained into the many challenges faced by the Military Police. In addition, for the first time, the Commission was invited to make presentations to increase awareness of its mandate and processes to participants at the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy advanced military police training course in Borden, Ontario. The MPCC made five such presentations to approximately 25 participants at the Sergeant level in each session. Ms Julianne Dunbar, General Counsel, and I were honoured to make presentations before the Military Police Symposium on March 31, 2011.

On May 14, 2010, I was honoured to have been appointed Chairperson of the Commission. During 2010-11, I have continued to be impressed by the dedication of Commission staff and their contributions to effectively achieving the Commission’s mandate. I have also greatly appreciated the professional and productive working relationship that exists between the Commission and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Deputy Commander responsible for Professional Standards, the Professional Standards staff, and the military police community.

_____________________
Glenn Stannard
Chairperson
September 15, 2011

Section I: Organizational Overview

Raison d’être

On behalf of all Canadians, the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission) exists to provide greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police activities. The Commission derives its mandate from Part IV of Canada’s National Defence Act.

Responsibilities

Anyone, including civilians, may make a complaint about military police conduct including those individuals not directly affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Such complaints are handled in the first instance by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and the Commission monitors the CFPM’s investigations. The Commission may at any time during a CFPM investigation, assume responsibility for the investigation or call a public hearing if it is deemed in the public interest to do so. Complainants can request the Commission review the complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the CFPM’s investigation or the disposition of the complaint.

A member of the military police conducting or supervising an investigation is also able to complain about improper interference encountered in the conduct of an investigation. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints of interference.

The Commission ensures the military police complaints process is accessible, transparent and fair to all concerned. The Commission, in its review of conduct or interference complaints, identifies and makes recommendations regarding opportunities for improvement, be it in the conduct of individual military police members or in systemic areas such as the policies and procedures that govern the conduct of all military police. These recommendations for change, when implemented, support the military police in maintaining the highest standards of professional conduct and in assuring the integrity of military police investigations. The effective discharge of the oversight activity by the Commission also provides assurance to members of the Canadian Forces, and ultimately to all Canadians, that they are being served by a military police service of the highest quality.

The Commission is a micro-agency. Operating out of Ottawa, the Commission currently has 19 full time employees (FTEs) and a program budget of $3.5 million. As a result of the Public Interest Hearing and the Federal Court application, the Commission requested and received an additional $5.0 million over three fiscal years ending in 2010-11.

The Commission is an independent Federal government institution as defined under Schedule 1.1 of the Financial Administration Act. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence. As an independent and quasi-judicial agency, and one of eight distinct but related organizations in the Defence Portfolio, the Commission must operate at a distance and with a degree of autonomy from government including the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. All members of the Commission are civilians and report to the Chairperson, independent of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, in fulfilling their responsibilities and accountabilities in accordance with governing legislation, regulations and policies.

Tribunal decisions and Commission operations and administration must also be, and be seen to be, free from ministerial influence other than seeking the signature of the Minister of National Defence, as the Minister responsible, to table the Commission’s Reports on Plans and Priorities; Departmental Performance Reports; Annual Reports to Parliament; and other accountability documents such as Memoranda to Cabinet and Treasury Board Submissions.

Strategic Outcome(s) and Program Activity Architecture (PAA)

Text Version

Organizational Priorities

Performance/Priority Status Legend

Exceeded: More than 100 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result or priority identified in the corresponding Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) was achieved during the fiscal year.

Met all: 100 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and expected outputs) for the expected result or priority identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Mostly met: 80 to 99 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and expected outputs) for the expected result or priority identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Somewhat met: 60 to 79 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result or priority identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Not met: Less than 60 per cent of the expected level of performance (as evidenced by the indicator and target or planned activities and outputs) for the expected result or priority identified in the corresponding RPP was achieved during the fiscal year.

Priority	Type1	Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies)
Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process.	Ongoing	Conduct complaints against the Military Police and interference complaints by the Military Police are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces.
Resolution of complaints in a timelier manner and the provision of meaningful recommendations increase the likelihood that the specific and systemic issues identified for change will be agreed upon and the improvements recommended will be implemented. The changes made will improve the quality of military policing and contribute directly to maintaining the confidence and support of those the Military Police serve.	Ongoing	The Commission can do no better than to have 100% of its recommendations accepted. However, the Commission will continue work with its partners in DND and the CF to identify additional opportunities for collaboration that may further streamline the complaints resolution process and contribute to the quality of recommendations made.
Status: Met all
100% of the Final Reports’ recommendations were accepted by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM).

Complementary to the Commission’s efforts to address various workload challenges, it also addressed its two 2010-11 priorities: Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Complaints Resolution Process and Priority 2: Improving Governance.

Priority 1 - Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Complaints Resolution Process

Highlighted below in bold are the five planning elements contained in the Commission’s 2010-11 RPP to support the achievement of Priority 1, along with a summary paragraph (s) of related performance and activities carried out for each of these elements.

Plan, Conduct and Report the Results of its Investigations

The quality of the Commission’s complaints’ resolution process remains high as evidenced by the 100% acceptance and implementation of Commission recommendations.

However, it should be recognized although costs and timeframes are monitored throughout the investigation and report writing stages of the complaints resolution process, the achievement of targets (no matter how carefully and realistically established) can still be influenced by the unpredictability of workload and the varying scope, number and complexity of complaints received.

The Commission measures its performance against the achievement of its strategic outcome in two very critical areas – whether complaints are resolved in a fair and timely manner and whether recommendations resulting from investigations are implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces. During 2010-11, the Commission continued to perform well in both of these areas.

Through its investigations, the Commission strives to assure fairness to both complainants and subject members at every stage of the process. 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. Generally, prior to the issuance of the Final Report, the Commission follows up to determine whether or not its recommendations have been implemented. For 2010-11, 100% of the Commission’s recommendations were accepted and implemented. This is the fifth year in a row the Commission had 100% acceptance and implementation.

Operate Effectively

The Commission continued to complete its investigations in accordance with the critical path developed specifically for each investigation.

The Commission continued to apply a number of measures to support the operational and administrative effectiveness of the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearings:

• continued use of Commission boardrooms as the official on-site location for hearings to streamline logistical issues such as security and access to technology; minimize costs; and optimize the deployment of human resources;
• maintaining registry/information management protocols to ensure orderly and secure management of a high volume of sensitive, complex evidence and legal and other documents;
• meeting increased media demands for information;
• employee training initiatives e.g. a staff training session was held on the identification of information and assets under the Access to Information Act, Privacy Act and the Policy on Government Security to ensure the appropriate classification and marking of sensitive information.

Cost Control

Because the Commission does not control the number, the complexity or the timing of the complaints it receives, it must be able to increase its operational capacities with very little advance notice while maintaining control over the costs of investigations. The Commission continued to use external subject matter experts to supplement its own internal resources.

The Commission continued to examine potential options to enhance its investigative capacity in order to further strengthen organizational sustainability. It also continued to use its roster of contract investigators to facilitate matching the type of complaint with investigation requirements and investigator skill sets. Existing billing practices and a fee structure established for investigators minimize costs and prevent downtime. The Commission advertises potential contract opportunities on its website for both investigators and lawyers. This also provides for increased transparency and openness regarding contracts.

Increase Transparency of Commission Operations

The Commission must ensure its mandate, roles and responsibilities, and complaints resolution processes are well known among its stakeholders: the Military Police, the Canadian Forces and Canadian citizens in general.

Through its Outreach Program, the Commission visited six Canadian Forces bases across Canada (Toronto, Ontario; London, Ontario; Shilo, Manitoba; Dundurn, Saskatchewan; Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; and Halifax, Nova Scotia) in 2010-11 and dialogued with key stakeholders on these topics. The Commission also received valuable feedback that will enable it to further tailor these presentations to the appropriate audiences.

For the first time, the Commission was invited to make presentations to increase awareness of its mandate and processes to participants at the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy (CFMPA) in Borden, Ontario. Five such presentations were attended by approximately 25 participants at the Sergeant level at each session. Other sessions are to be scheduled for the 2011-12 fiscal year in accordance with the CFMPA’s training calendar.

In addition, to further reinforce the transparency of its operations, the Commission:

• shared its professional experience and expertise at the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OCAP); the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight for Law Enforcement (CACOLE); and gave a presentation to a university Military Law class at the University of Ottawa.
• met in Ottawa, in June 2010, with representatives of the Trinidad Judge Advocate General’s Office and a commander from its military chain of command, as well as two representatives of the Canadian Judge Advocate General’s Office. A presentation was made on the mission and mandate of the Commission as well as some of the challenges faced in exercising the Commission’s oversight role.
• made presentations before the Military Police Symposium on March 31, 2011. Glenn Stannard, Commission Chairperson, and Ms Julianne Dunbar, General Counsel, were honoured to make those presentations.
• effectively met significantly increased media and other demands from within and outside government for information related particularly to its high profile Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing; throughout 2010-11, the Commission provided timely, open press releases, backgrounders and other documents, including updates on its website and individually tailored responses as required.
• complied with reporting requirements to Parliament and central agencies through the preparation and submission of a range of strategic documents such as the Report on Plans and Priorities, the Departmental Performance Report; the Annual Report; and Public Accounts as well as reporting on compliance with other legislative requirements such as the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Official Languages Act.

Cooperation

The Commission requires the cooperation of its stakeholders and partners to be successful. For example, a Final Report cannot be issued until the appropriate authority in the military or defence hierarchy has provided a response to the Commission’s Interim Report and recommendations for improvements. The fact that for the 5th year in a row, 100% of its recommendations were accepted and implemented reinforces existing productive working relationships.

The Commission also continued to cooperate in various intra-government initiatives through its affiliation with other Small Agencies’ sharing expertise and experience to seek operational and administrative solutions to common problems. For example, these include the Heads of Federal Agencies, the Small Agencies Personnel Advisory Group, the Shared Services Working Group and the Burden of Reporting Working Group.

The Commission continued to contribute its expertise and experiences to civilian oversight organizations and it has helped to clarify and strengthen operational policies and procedures through its investigation of conduct and interference complaints such as those involving abuse of power, inappropriate behaviour, inadequate investigations by the Military Police and interference in a Military Police investigation.

Priority	Type	Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies)
Improving governance	Ongoing	Provide effective governance to assist in the effectiveness of the complaints resolution process.
The Commission continues to seek ways to work more efficiently, in compliance with the requirements of both the Commission and the central agencies, while ensuring its resources are applied in a manner to achieve the best results.	Ongoing
The Commission will continue to review and strengthen its staffing, succession planning, and knowledge retention practices wherever needed in order to ensure the continued effective delivery of Commission services.	Ongoing	Provide resources and expertise to efficiently and effectively deliver programs and services of the Commission in order to meet its mandate.
Status: Met all
In drafting reports or other documents to meet the mandatory requirements of central agencies, the Commission engaged with these agencies in advance to ensure its compliance with those requirements as well as those of the Commission as a micro-agency.  In so doing, the Commission made the process more efficient. Relying on service providers in staffing provided the MPCC with a relatively stable, qualified, and experienced work force.

Priority 2 - Improving Governance

The Commission continues to seek ways to work more efficiently, in compliance with the requirements of both the Commission and the central agencies while ensuring its resources are applied in a manner to achieve the best results.

Highlighted below in bold are the five planning elements contained in the Commission’s 2010-11 RPP to support the achievement of Priority 2, along with a summary paragraph(s) of related performance and activities carried out for each of these elements.

Planning and Reporting: Planning and reporting policy requirements continued to increase. This necessitated the Commission’s access of a range of service providers in order to meet central agency requirements and standards in finance, human resource, staffing, security, access to information and privacy, records management and informatics, and the content and structure of the Commission’s website.

Evergreening Program: As part of new policy requirements for the Investment Plan, the Commission’s Evergreening Program included not only information technology assets but also all other assets including professional services. The Commission also undertook specific initiatives to ‘green’ Commission operations consistent with the government’s Green Procurement strategy. Over the longer term, the Commission will advance the automation (“greening”) of previously paper-based functions to become more environmentally friendly.

Business Continuity Plan: During the reporting period, the Commission reviewed, updated and communicated its emergency response plans, including roles and responsibilities to reinforce staff awareness and preparedness. This included providing first aid and defibrillator training to the first responders, responding to emergencies such as the earthquake and flooding, and implementing an annual flu shot program during the fall/winter seasons.

Human Resources: The Commission continued to stress effective human resource planning including anticipating potential staff turnover, developing staffing strategies to help ensure that knowledge is retained and that vacancies are filled as quickly as possible.

To become more efficient, the Commission implemented various automated human resources processes and systems consistent with human resources renewal priority and government-wide initiatives. This included the implementation of the automated leave application; the Employee Passport which helps to ensure timely transfer of employees’ records from one Public Service department to another; Compensation Web Application; application related to the Public Service Health Care Plan coverage; and Virtual pay application which will enable employees to view their pay on line. Over the longer term, the automation (“greening”) of previously paper-based functions will be environmentally positive.

Risk Management and Management Reviews: The Commission continued to maintain its risk management framework and conducted management or business reviews based on the high risk elements identified in the framework.

The Commission conducted five internal reviews

• Privacy Act: A Phase I gap analysis was initiated to determine the level of compliance with the Privacy Act and other relevant government policies and directives.
• Information Management (IM): In preparation for the horizontal audit, the Commission implemented Phase II of the information management review and identified related processes and practices.
• Information Technology (IT): Phase II of the information technology management review continued throughout the year. The Commission hired a technical writer to document all IT processes and procedures including key areas as IT security and incident response. In addition, the Commission implemented a project to upgrade the information technology infrastructure with a virtualized network.
• Library Services: A gap analysis of the library collection was initiated in order to identify opportunities to create a more “paperless” environment. This included a review of the current collection of books against publications available and accessible on the internet and in other legal databases.
• Electronic Document Management: consistent with the IM and IT management reviews, a Phase I gap analysis was carried out of existing records and document holdings. The goal of this gap analysis was to determine which electronic document management solution would best meet the requirements of all areas of Commission operations including administration, Privacy and Access to Information, and a case management system.

As per the normal scheduled cycle, the Commission initiated a staffing management review in 2010-11 which continued into 2011-12. This scheduled review examined compliance, trends, and file management and the results are used to ensure all staffing actions are managed and administered in accordance to the legislation and delegation of authorities.

During the reporting period, the Comptroller General (CG) conducted an official audit regarding the Commission’s information management practices. The CG’s initial assessment was received; however, the final report has yet to be issued.

Risk Analysis

Capacity and Timeliness

As a micro-agency, the Commission continued to address issues that are both unique and complex including meeting the standards set by central agencies for Departments and Agencies. Planning and reporting policy requirements continued to increase necessitating the Commission’s access of a range of service providers in order to meet central agency requirements and standards in; finance, human resources, staffing, security, access to information and privacy, records management, informatics, and the content and structure of the Commission’s website.

As a micro-agency, the Commission has limited resources and capacity to meet increased, externally-imposed standards and policy requirements. As a result, on an ongoing basis, it evaluated and prioritized how best to apply its resources to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, compliance with central agency expectations.

In addition, the time required to conduct investigations and to complete the necessary research and analysis continued to increase. The complexity of the cases is resulting in thousands of pages of evidence and the need to identify, schedule and interview multiple witnesses across Canada and abroad. All of these factors contribute to extending the duration of an investigation and the length of time required to write Interim and Final Reports. The additional time involved increases the costs.

Resources

As a micro-agency, the Commission is not resourced to conduct large Public Interest Hearings. As a result, the Commission sought and obtained additional funds over the three year period ending in 2010-11 to cover the one-time costs of both the Public Interest Hearing including Federal Court challenges.

Should such a requirement arise once again, additional funding will again need to be obtained and perhaps consideration of a permanent increase in its reference level.

Collaboration

The Commission continued its practice of ongoing discussions with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and senior military police staff to address and resolve issues and to even further strengthen the complaints resolution process.

Recommendations for improvements in the Commission’s Interim and Final reports are not binding on the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. The Commission continued to foster quality working relationships in order to facilitate the conduct of the investigations and the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented. For the 5th year in a row, 100% of the Commission’s recommendations were accepted for implementation by the CFPM.

Human Resource Planning

The success the Commission has achieved is due in large part to its knowledgeable and stable workforce. But like all small and micro-agencies, it can be difficult to retain employees when, for the most part, the size and flatness of the organization limit opportunities for advancement.

The Commission undertook a review of its organization structure and amended it to ensure adequate succession planning, provide opportunities for advancement wherever possible and realigned positions to stabilize the Commission in areas such as the Registry, Information Technology, and Finance. The Commission continued to stress effective human resource planning, anticipating potential staff turnover and developing staffing strategies to help ensure that knowledge is retained (e.g. through employee learning plans) and that vacancies are filled as quickly as possible.

However, increased accountability and transparency standards have lengthened the staffing process and made it more difficult to staff positions in a timely manner. As a micro-agency, one Commission employee may oversee several programs and staffing delays result in increased cost to the Commission as well as the transfer of workload onto other employees who are already fully engaged in fulfilling their existing responsibilities.

Legislative Risks

As a result of the Commission’s experience in the Amnesty International Canada (AIC)/British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (AIC/BCCLA) complaints, the Commission identified several areas presenting challenges and potential long-term risks to its fundamental role as an oversight agency. Issues of concern included the Federal government’s reluctance to provide the Commission with appropriate legislative authority under the Canada Evidence Act to access sensitive information; interpretation of what constitutes a policing duty and function; the Commission’s involvement in judicial reviews by not being named as a party leaving the parties (i.e. the complainants) to fund and argue the cases before the Federal Court.

Governor-in-Council (GIC Appointments)

The Commission continues to rely on the Federal government to identify, recommend and appoint full-time and part-time GIC members in a timely manner. During 2010-11, the Commission was challenged by vacant part-time GIC member positions and the renewal of the existing GIC members’ tenures. The already heavy workload carried by Commission members continues to increase both in terms of volume and complexity. The lack of an adequate number of qualified GIC members to meet these workload demands could potentially compromise the integrity of Commission processes including response timelines for the investigation of cases.

Designated as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Commission, the Chairperson is accountable for all Commission activities and for the achievement of results. Based on the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Full-Time Governor in Council Appointees, the Chairperson has been designated as Chief Executive Officer, statutory deputy head or “Deputy Head” as defined by the Financial Administration Act and as designated through the Governor in Council (GIC).

As Deputy Head, the Chairperson is accountable to Parliament for fulfilling management responsibilities, including financial management. This includes accountability for allocating resources to deliver Commission programs and services in compliance with governing legislation, regulations and policies; for exercising authority delegated by the Public Service Commission for human resources; for maintaining effective systems of internal controls; for signing accounts in a manner that accurately reflects the financial position of the Commission; and for exercising any and all other duties prescribed by legislation, regulations or policies relating to the administration of the Commission. Although, this work cannot be completed without the dedication and expertise of the Commission staff and subject matter experts i.e. accountants, lawyers, investigators, etc.

Expenditure Profile

The Commission works effectively with a reference level of $3.5M to support its program activities regarding Complaints Resolution and Internal Services which also includes the Office of the Chairperson.

Due to the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing, the financial resources of the Commission have increased for the three year period ending 2010-11.  As mentioned earlier, the Commission sought and received additional funding to address the Public Interest Hearing and the related Federal Court applications.

Almost the entire amount can be attributed to the costs of the Public Interest Hearing and the Federal Court challenges.  The actual costs charged to the Hearing, in 2010-11, were $983K. 

Summary of Performance

2010-11 Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$4,685	$7,001	$4,423

2010-11 Human Resources (full-time equivalents – FTEs)

Planned	Actual	Difference
21 FTEs	16 FTEs	5 FTEs

As a result of the Public Interest Hearing and the Federal Court application, the Commission requested and received an additional $5.0 million over three fiscal years: $1.2 million in 2008-09; $2.6 million and three FTEs in 2009-10; and $1.2 million and two FTEs in 2010-11.

Strategic Outcome: Conduct complaints against the Military Police and interference complaints by the Military Police are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces.

Performance Indicators	Targets	2010-11 Performance
Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process	Ongoing	Met all
Improving governance	Ongoing	Met all

Program Activity	2009-10 Actual Spending ($ thousands)	2010-112 ($ thousands)				Alignment to Government of Canada Outcome
		Main Estimates	Planned Spending	Total Authorities1	Actual Spending2
Complaints Resolution	$3,507	$2,670	$2,670	$3,736	$2,288	Maintaining safe and secure communities in Canada and abroad
Total	$3,507	$2,670	$2,670	$3,736	$2,288

Notes:

1. Includes $2.1M received in the Supplementary Estimates primarily for the costs of conducting the Public Interest Hearing and of responding to judicial challenges to the Commission’s mandate in Federal Court.
2. Includes $983K spent on the Public Interest Hearing and Federal Court costs.

Program Activity	2009-10 Actual Spending ($ thousands)	2010-11 ($ thousands)
		Main Estimates	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
Internal Services	$1,169	$2,015	$2,015	$3,265	$2,135

Expenditure Profile

Canada’s Economic Action Plan (EAP)

Departmental Spending Trend ($ millions)

Text Version

Estimates by Vote

For information on the Military Police Complaints Commission’s Votes and/or statutory expenditures, please see the 2010–11 Public Accounts of Canada (Volume II) publication. An electronic version of the Public Accounts is available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website.³

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page