ARCHIVED - Military Police Complaints Commission

• 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This page has been archived.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) 2008-09 Departmental Performance Report (DPR).

The Commission was established by the Government of Canada by amendment in 1998 of the National Defence Act, Part IV of which sets out the full mandate of the Commission and how complaints are to be handled. The purpose of the Commission is to provide independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces military police. 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 challenges – legislative, operational and administrative - to the successful discharge of that mandate have increased substantially, including those matters related to the nature, breadth and subject matter sensitivity of complaints.

The Commission identified, in its 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities, two priorities: to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process and to improve management accountability. Despite increased workload pressures, I am pleased to report that the Commission has been successful in addressing these priorities. In fact, the improvements to process enabled the completion of the work. In that regard, several significant, complex conduct investigations were concluded and the resulting Interim and Final Reports addressed both specific and systemic issues relating to such issues as military police assisting the mentally ill and active offers of police services provided in either official language.

The Commission has continued with its outreach program with visits to seven (7) Canadian Forces Bases during 2008-09. These visits have provided the Commission the opportunity to increase awareness of its mandate and its processes for identifying and reporting complaints and they provide an opportunity for members of the military police to familiarize themselves with the Commission's mandate and the complaints resolution process. The Commission benefits also in that it gains further insight into issues affecting military police in the performance of their policing duties.

People management excellence is at the root of successful results for the Commission. The Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) is an initiative used by the Commission to measure and benchmark the state of people management within its organization. The latest PSES was conducted in November-December 2008 and management is highly gratified by the contributions of staff to the survey and the very positive results in terms of staff satisfaction with the Commission’s leadership and workplace.

By continuing to work in close collaboration with our partners, the Commission was able to identify additional opportunities to improve upon the investigative and reporting processes and ensuring that our recommendations are communicated as quickly as possible to those responsible for their implementation. I wish to recognize the efforts of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, his professional standards staff and the broader military police community for their contributions to the work of the Commission and the performance of oversight.

The Commission continues to examine its existing policies, practices and procedures, creating new or adapting old, in order to strengthen its internal management and ensure its resources are being used optimally to achieve its oversight mandate. The responsibility to exercise sound stewardship of the public resources entrusted to it is a responsibility the Commission takes very seriously.

This report also reflects the exceptional efforts of Commission staff, their professionalism, determination and dedication. It was ultimately through their efforts that the accomplishments of the Commission have been achieved and I wish to thank them for their enthusiastic and positive responses to the many challenges faced and overcome throughout the year.

 

 

_____________________
Peter A. Tinsley
Chairperson
September 14, 2009

SECTION I – DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW

1.1 Summary Information

Raison d’être

The Commission became operational on December 1, 1999. Its purpose is to provide independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces military police. It is an independent commission, accountable to Parliament, through the Minister of National Defence.

Responsibilities

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 (CF) or a senior official of the Department of National Defence (DND) has improperly interfered with, or attempted to influence, a police investigation. The role of the Commission is to provide for greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police investigations.

The Commission receives and inquires into complaints independently and impartially and arrives at objective findings and recommendations based on the information provided by complainants, the subjects of the complaints, witnesses and others who may assist in uncovering the truth concerning the events being investigated. The Commission formulates recommendations based on the findings of its independent and impartial reviews and investigations of complaints. If the authority responsible for dealing with these recommendations does not act on them, the reasons for not acting must be provided to the Chairperson and the Minister of National Defence.

While the Chairperson’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 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.

Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture

The Commission has one strategic outcome: a military police organization that performs its policing duties in a highly professional manner, free from interference and with the confidence and support of those it serves.

1.2 Performance Summary

Financial and Human Resources

2008-09 Financial Resources ($ thousands)
	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
Operations	3,431	3,678	3,385
Public Interest Hearing	0	1,204	482
Total	3,431	4,882	3,867

2008-09 Human Resources (FTEs)
	Planned	Actual	Difference
Operations (Note)	19	14	5
Public Interest Hearing	4	3	1
Total	23	17	6

The Commission received through Supplementary Estimates an additional $1.2 million for the first year costs related both to the conduct of a Public Interest Hearing and to the response to mandate challenges in Federal Court raised by the Attorney General related to the Public Interest Hearing. Total funding authorized over the 3 year period for the response to the legislative challenges to the Commission’s mandate, for the conduct of investigations, the Public Interest Hearings to be held and for the preparation and release of Interim and Final Reports was slightly less than $5 million.

Strategic Outcome: A military police organization that performs its policing duties in a highly professional manner, free from interference and with the confidence and support of those it serves

Performance Indicator	Target	2008-09 Performance
1. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process	Ongoing	Successfully met
2. Improving governance	New	Successfully met

Program Activity	2007-08 Actual Spending ($ thousands)	2008-09 ($ thousands)				Alignment to Govern- ment of Canada Outcome
		Main Estimates	Planned Spending	Total Autho- rities1	Actual Spending2
Complaints Resolution	2,909	3,431	3,431	4,882	3,867	maintaining safe and secure commu- nities in Canada and abroad

Contribution of Priorities to Strategic Outcome

Operational Priorities	Type	Performance Status	Linkage to Strategic Outcome
1. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process	Ongoing	Successfully Met	Military police organization that performs its policing duties in a highly professional manner, free from interference and with the confidence and support of those it serves
The 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 policing and contribute directly to maintaining the confidence and support of those the military police serve.		100% of the Final Reports’ recommendations were accepted by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM).	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 will further accelerate the complaints resolution process and contribute to the quality of recommendations made.

Management Priorities	Type	Performance Status	Linkage to Strategic Outcome
2. Improving governance	Ongoing	Successfully Met	A military police organization that performs its policing duties in a highly professional manner, free from interference and with the confidence and support of those it serves
One of the elements of improving governance is to attract and retain a high-quality workforce. By so doing, the Commission is able to conduct investigations of high quality efficiently and economically.		Staffing, contracting and service agreements with other government departments provided the Commission with a relatively stable, qualified, and experienced work force.	The Commission, as a micro agency with only 19 full-time employees, each of whose roles and responsibilities are unique, has, is and will continue reviewing and strengthening staffing, succession planning, and knowledge retention practices. Failure to do so could compromise the continued effective delivery of Commission services.

Risk Analysis

Potential Erosion of the Commission’s Legislative Mandate

The Commission has a mandate to examine complaints arising from the conduct of military police members in the exercise of policing duties or functions. To carry out this mandate, the Chairperson has the power to investigate, to cause the Commission to conduct an investigation, convene public hearings, report its findings and make recommendations based on those findings. In February 2007, the Commission received a complaint from Amnesty International Canada (AIC) and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) concerning the conduct of military police members in the handling of detainees in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, a Public Interest Investigation was initiated primarily due to the seriousness of the allegations, and the potential threat to public confidence in the military police. In March 2008, a Public Interest Hearing was launched into this complaint in which the Commission has the power to compel testimony and documentary evidence in order to conduct a complete investigation into the grave allegations raised in the complaint. The Attorney General of Canada responded by submitting a Notice of Application, calling into question the Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter.

The Commission continued to pursue its mandate with regards to these complaints. It held a public Procedural Overview session in advance of the planned 2009 Public Interest Hearings in relation to the AIC and BCCLA complaints. The Attorney General of Canada again went to Federal Court, this time seeking an order staying the Public Interest Hearing until the final determination of the two applications for judicial review brought by the Attorney General. The motion for a stay was dismissed by the Federal Court.

As of the end of the fiscal year, the Government’s legal challenges to the Commission’s jurisdiction with respect to these complaints remain pending before the Federal Court.

Capacity - number and complexity of complaints and investigations

The Commission does not control the number, the complexity or the timing of the complaints it receives. Nor can the Commission determine in advance whether or not the Chairperson may find it necessary to exercise his discretionary authority and determine the need for a Public Interest Investigation or a Public Interest Hearing. The conduct of the current Public Interest Hearing and the activities related to properly addressing the Federal Court challenges placed a significant demand on the already scarce resources of the Commission. The Commission obtained the required additional resources through Supplementary Estimates.

Forecasting is not easy. Investigations can vary considerably in terms of complexity and size - while one investigation may be “local” and involve interviewing two or three people in a single location, another may be “national” and involve interviewing dozens of individuals who are deployed at several sites across the country and abroad. Similarly, while some relatively straightforward cases can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, other investigations can involve reviewing thousands of pages of documentary evidence gathered over several years, extensive interview notes, tape and video recordings, and may take several months to complete.

The effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process depends to a large extent on how well the Commission manages its workload and applies its limited resources to resolving the cases on hand.

Reports of Public Interest Investigations, as well as summaries of complaints that have been investigated and reviewed by the Commission, are available on its website (in the process of being updated) at http://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/300/300_e.aspx.

Co-operation and Collaboration

For the Commission to be successful, it requires the co-operation of others. In the majority its of cases, the Commission must rely on voluntary cooperation to obtain documents and other evidence. The Chairperson cannot issue a final report in a given case until the appropriate authority within the military or defence hierarchy has provided a response to the Chairperson’s interim report. In addition, the recommendations for improvements issued by the Commission in its interim and final reports are not binding on the CF or DND. The extent to which the Commission manages its relationship with the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and other stakeholders will have a significant impact on the overall success of the Commission.

During the year, the Commission and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service acted upon a protocol developed in 2007. Addressing witness interviews and information sharing, the protocol enabled the completion of parallel investigations without the work of one either compromising or impeding the work of the other. In addition, the “work sharing” accelerated the issuance of the Commission’s Interim Report. The protocol remains as a model for future cases.

Establishing and maintaining good working relationships with the CFPM, the CDS and other stakeholders within the Department will also help to ensure that the Commission’s recommendations are quickly and completely implemented. For the third year in a row, 100% of the Commission’s Final Report recommendations have been accepted by the CFPM.

Awareness

The military police force is a dynamic organization and, like any organization, its members move and change over time. Through its outreach program, the Commission annually visits CF bases across the country and engages new and existing members on its mandate and activities and addresses concerns about the complaints resolution process. By so doing, the Commission increases the likelihood that complaints will be identified, brought forward and successfully resolved.

Workforce

The Commission is a micro agency with an annual budget of approximately $3.4 million with 19 full-time employees, 1 full-time Governor in Council (GiC) appointee, and several part-time GiC appointees. In 2008-09, 14 of the 19 full-time employee positions were staffed, the full-time GiC appointee position was fully staffed, and there were 3 part-time GiC appointees staffed totaling approximately 1 FTE.

For the Public Interest Hearing, supplementary funding of $1.2 million and four new positions were authorized for 2008-09. Of these four positions, three were staffed.

The roles performed and the responsibilities discharged by each employee are, for the most-part, unique. It is recognized that a stable and knowledgeable workforce is critical to the ongoing success of the Commission. To this end, the Commission initiated a review of opportunities to further strengthen staffing, succession planning, and knowledge retention practices to help lessen the impact of employee departure and allow for the continued effective delivery of the Commission services.

The Commission recognizes the importance of people management excellence in running a successful organization. The Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) is used by management to inform and improve its people management efforts. The results of the 2008 PSES were very positive for the Commission, both in terms of the staff participation and the high degree of staff satisfaction. With information from this survey, actions have been taken to address people management issues that matter most to employees and have the greatest impact on achieving results for the Commission.

Expenditure Profile

There is an increase of almost $1 million in actual spending in 2008-09 over the two previous fiscal years. Almost the entire amount can be attributed to the costs of the Public Interest Hearing and the Federal Court challenges to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The actual costs charged to the Hearing were $481 thousand; the remainder of the costs were absorbed by the Commission. The spending trends set out below show the changes and identify the costs related to the Public Interest Hearing.

[D]

Voted and Statutory Items ($ thousands)

Vote or Statutory Item	Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording	2006-07	2007–08	2008-09
		Actual Spending	Actual Spending	Main Estimate	Actual Spending
20	Program expenditures	2,629	2,726	3,150	3,627
(S)	Contributions to employee benefit plans	208	183	281	240
	Total	2,837	2,909	3,431	3,867

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page