Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Military Police Complaints Commission
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
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.
SECTION II – ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY STRATEGIC OUTCOME
2.1 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.
Complaints Resolution
This activity focuses on successfully resolving complaints about the conduct of military police members as well as complaints of interference with military police investigations. There are two types of complaints – conduct complaints and interference complaints. A brief description of each follows:
Conduct Complaints Process
Conduct Complaint Filed
Anyone may make a conduct complaint regarding the military police in the performance of their duties or functions. Such complaints are first made to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM). Informal resolution is encouraged.
Complaint Investigated by the CFPM
Complainants can request that the Commission review the complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the CFPM’s investigation or disposition of the complaint.
Request for Review
Complainants can request that the Commission review the complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the CFPM's investigation.
Commission Reviews Complaint
At a minimum, this process involves a review of documentation related to the CFPM’s investigation. Most often, it also includes interviews with the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and witnesses, as well as reviews of relevant legislation and police policies and procedures.
Commission Releases Interim Report
The Interim Report is sent to the Minister of National Defence, the CDS and the CFPM.
Notice of Action
The Notice of Action is the official response by the Canadian Forces to the Interim Report and it outlines what action, if any, has been or will be taken in response to the Commission’s recommendations.
Commission Releases Final Report
After considering the Notice of Action, the Commission issues a Final Report of findings and recommendations. The Final Report is provided to the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the CDS, the Judge Advocate General, the CFPM, the complainant and the subject(s) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a direct and substantive interest in the case.
Interference Complaints Process
Interference Complaint Filed
Members of the military police who conduct or supervise investigations may complain about interference in their investigations.
Commission Investigates
The Commission has sole jurisdiction over the investigation of interference complaints and therefore commences an investigation immediately upon receipt of the complaint.
Commission Releases Interim Report
The Interim Report includes a summary of the Commission’s investigation, as well as its findings and recommendations. This report goes to the Minister of Defence; the CDS if the alleged interference was carried out by a member of the military or to the Deputy Minister if the subject of the complaint is a senior official of the Department; the Judge Advocate General; and the CFPM.
Notice of Action
This official response to the Interim Report indicates the actions, if any, that have been or will be taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations.
The Commission Releases Final Report
Taking into account the response in the Notice of Action, the Commission prepares a Final Report of its findings and recommendations in the case. The Final Report is provided to the Minister; the Deputy Minister; the CDS; the Judge Advocate General; the CFPM; the complainant and the subject(s) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a direct and substantive interest in the case.
Conduct and Interference Complaints
The complaints resolution process results in Interim and Final Reports containing findings and recommendations. These recommendations identify opportunities for improvement, highlighting instances of individual or systemic problems where change is required. The recommendations, when implemented, will improve the quality of policing which, in turn, will contribute directly to maintaining the confidence and support of those the military police serve.
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. The Commission is performing well in both 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 2008-09, 100% of the Commission’s recommendations were accepted and implemented. This is the third year in a row that the Commission had 100% acceptance and implementation.
As for timeliness, the Commission continues to address targets and measures. It is very difficult to establish universal time-frames and standards when complaints vary substantially in complexity. But speed of service is very much a concern. Timing is a constant theme in the planning and execution of all investigations. Each of the phases in the complaints resolution process is “timed” and reported upon and adjustments are made should the targets established by the Chairperson for that particular complaint require modification. What remains to be done, however, is to develop universal targets and measures that reflect more correctly the complexity and size of the complaint being addressed, that can be measured against and that can produce meaningful results that can be acted upon. The Commission intends to work on these issues with Treasury Board in order to ensure full compliance with the Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) policy.
2.1.1 Program Activity: Complaints Resolution
| 2008–09 Financial Resources ($000) | 2008–09 Human Resources (FTEs) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Planned | Actual | Difference |
| 3,431 | 4,882 | 3,867 | 23 | 17 | 6 |
| Expected Results | Performance Indicators | Targets | Performance Status | Performance Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| To successfully resolve complaints about the conduct of military police members, as well as complaints of interference with military police investigations, by overseeing and reviewing all complaints received. This program is necessary to help the military police be as effective and as professional as possible in their policing duties and functions | The recommendations resulting from investigations of conduct or interference complaints are accepted by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces. | 70% of the recommendations accepted | Exceeded - 100% accepted | 26 recommendations accepted |
| The investigations/ complaints resulting from investigations of conduct or interference complaints are resolved within targeted timeframes as established by the Commission Chairperson. | 70% resolved within adjusted time frames established by the Commission Chairperson | Exceeded - 100% resolved within time frames as adjusted due to complexity of the file | 17 out of 17 | |
| In 70% of the cases, individual members received remedial measures and/or improvements were made to military police policies and practices pursuant to investigations of conduct or interference complaints. | 70% of recommendations implemented | Exceeded - 100% implemented | 26 recommendations implemented |
2.2 Performance Analysis
2008-09 was an extremely busy year during which the Commission monitored the CFPM investigation of forty-two (42) complaints about military police conduct. The Commission also received eight (8) requests for review of the CFPM’s handling of conduct complaints which required an independent investigation by the Commission. There were no interference complaints received during the year.
The Commission prepared seventeen (17) reports during the fiscal year, eight (8) final reports, which included two concluding reports, and nine (9) interim reports. There was a total of twenty-six (26) recommendations in these reports. One hundred percent (100%) of the Commission’s recommendations were accepted by the CFPM or the CDS, as was the case in the two previous years.
In addition to its normal workload, the Commission was heavily involved in trying to resolve the complaints regarding the transfer of detainees by Military Police in Afghanistan. A Public Interest Investigation had been initiated in late February 2007 concerning this complaint. But following delays in obtaining relevant documents and information, in March 2008, the Chairperson directed that the investigation into the complaints lodged by AIC and BCCLA move to a public hearing process. The Attorney General of Canada proceeded to request a judicial review in Federal Court in respect to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The same complainants filed a second complaint in respect of which the Commission issued a decision in September 2008 accepting the complaint. This decision has also been challenged in Federal Court.
Recognizing that the existing resources of the Commission would be insufficient to address not only the existing and projected workload of the Commission but also the costs of conducting the Public Interest Hearing and responding to the Federal Court challenges to the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Commission submitted a comprehensive business case and a supplementary estimate submission to Treasury Board and received additional one-time funding of almost $5 million over three years. Four new positions were created and three were staffed in 2008-09, on a temporary basis, to assist the Commission address the heavy workload associated with the conduct of the Hearing and Federal Court proceedings.
At the end of the fiscal year, the Federal Court had yet to rule on the applications for judicial review filed by the Attorney General of Canada.
Details and the current status of the Commission’s Public Interest Hearing and the Federal Court proceedings can be found on the Commission’s website at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
While addressing its workload, the Commission had two priorities - improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process and improve governance.
Priority 1 - improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process
The Commission, just over two years ago, developed a new service standard and a new approach to investigations aimed at improving the quality of investigations and at reducing the time required to resolve a complaint. Like the previous year, the Commission managed its investigations carefully and refinements and adjustments were made in real-time as the investigation proceeded. The quality of the investigations remains high, as evidenced by the 100% acceptance and implementation of the Commission recommendations. Although costs and timeframes are monitored throughout the investigation and report writing stages of the complaints resolution process, precise targets remain difficult to set, given the variety in size and complexity of complaints received.
Increase transparency of Commission operations
To be truly effective, the Commission must ensure that its mandate and mission are well known among its stakeholders: the military police, the Canadian Forces and Canadian citizens in general. As well, the Commission must also ensure that its stakeholders are aware of how the complaints resolution process works and the fairness that the Commission brings to the overall process. In this regard, through an outreach program, the Commission visited seven Canadian Forces bases across Canada and dialogued with key stakeholders on the Commission’s mandate and activities. Concerns about the complaints resolution process were addressed as well. The Commission representatives also gained a further appreciation of the environment in which the military police member operates. The Commission expanded the information on its website while adhering to the policies of Treasury Board regarding “Common Look and Feel.”
The Commission, after serious consideration, decided to postpone its planned review of the communications program. The additional workload resulting from the Public Interest Hearing made such a review too challenging.
Enhance working relationships with stakeholders
The Commission requires the cooperation of others to be successful - a final report can not be issued until the military or defence hierarchy has provided a response to the Commission’s interim report and recommendations for improvements. The fact that 100% of its recommendations were accepted and implemented indicates that the working relationships are productive, positive and well established.
The Commission and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) successfully completed an initiative for parallel investigations on the basis of an innovative protocol established in 2007 to ensure effective coordination of these two investigations including interviewing witnesses and sharing information. This protocol enabled the Commission to make meaningful progress on its Public Interest Investigation into the complaint of Professor Attaran, without compromising or impeding the CFNIS Criminal/Disciplinary investigation. As a result of this protocol, the Commission was able to complete its Interim Report in this case three months after the conclusion of the CFNIS investigation, months earlier than would otherwise have been possible. It is intended that the protocol will become a standard for use in the future.
Improve operational capacities
This planning element is a constant. 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 and without losing control over the costs of investigations. The outsourcing of investigation will continue as it enables the Commission to obtain a better match between investigation requirements and investigator skill sets. The existing billing practices and a fee structure established for investigators minimize costs and prevent downtime. The Commission will review the results of the soon to be released internal report of an audit conducted in 2008-09 by the Office of the Comptroller General of procurement practices and contracting to identify and adopt relevant best practices. The Commission receives a variety of corporate services from external suppliers. The Commission will continue to review these agreements/contracts at the time of their renewal to ensure that efficiencies and costs savings are being achieved.
Priority 2 – improving governance
The Commission needs to find ways to work more efficiently, in compliance with the requirements of both the Commission and the central agencies, while ensuring that its resources are applied in a manner to achieve the best results.
Attract and maintain a high quality workforce
One of the key essentials to the success of the Commission is the quality of its workforce. In a micro agency, where frequent turnover is an operational reality, the ability to attract and retain quality employees is paramount. The Commission is in the process of creating a culture of continuous learning and creating a workload that is both challenging and rewarding. In this regard, the Chairperson hosted a well received awards and recognition ceremony at which a number of employees were publicly recognized for a range of contributions such as leadership, initiative, service and work process improvement, quality control, team work, and contributions to positive workplace morale. By efforts such as this, the Commission hopes to extend the time that an individual tends to remain in micro agencies.
During the past year, the human resource management plans stressed the development and implementation of individual workplans; however, the ongoing workload as well as the additional workload resulting from the Public Interest Hearing put the majority of these plans on hold. With the resourcing related to the hearing now in place, the Commission intends to proceed with these plans.
Another facet of the Commission’s human resource planning is that it has become more proactive; succession planning is identifying potential turnover in advance. Departures now are being managed to the greatest extent possible to allow for a proper handover of responsibilities and to provide for on-the-job training, where required.
The Commission continued to use service partners to supplement its own internal resources. Services were provided as agreed upon and the costs for these services were reasonable.
Adhere to the legislative and policy requirements of the Commission and the central agencies
The focus on compliance with the requirements of the Commission and the central agencies continued. A comprehensive review of staffing actions was undertaken to confirm if they had been carried out in compliance with government policy and standards. The review was started late in the fiscal year and, although not yet finalized, the results when available will be used to further improve staffing in particular and human resource management overall.
The Commission conducted an additional internal review of its practices and standards associated with the management of its operational files. As a result of this review, further refinements were made to the Commission’s structured evidence and document management system to reinforce robust management, tracking and protection of the extraordinarily complex, highly sensitive and voluminous information supporting its investigations and hearings.
A formal audit of the management of information technology, originally scheduled for fiscal year 2008-09, was delayed until the first quarter of 2009-10. The results, when available, will be used to further improve information technology management within the Commission.
The Office of the Comptroller General performed a Small Department and Agencies horizontal audit of contracting for professional, technical and temporary help services in 2008-09. The Commission participated in this audit and will be reviewing the observations and recommendations and preparing an action plan to address the issues requiring change.
The Commission experienced a significant increase in the number (from 5 to 21) and complexity of new requests made under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act over the past two years. In order to assist in mitigating the time-consuming and resource-intensive process of responding to these requests, the Commission refined its administrative procedures, which have enabled it to meet the thirty-day response time limit for the majority of these requests.
Improve management practices and update policy suites
During the course of the year, the Commission developed a risk management framework based on the ten integrated elements of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). Using the criteria within MAF, the Commission was able to determine its management and operational status against the expectations for good public service management. The gaps between the expectation and the reality indicated to the Commission where it was at risk – this led to the development of the Corporate Risk Profile. It is recognized that the profile is a work-in-progress and requires further refinement and consultation with others, including the Office of the Comptroller General.
The Commission intends to seek further collaboration and assistance from Treasury Board with its performance measurement framework. As mentioned previously, establishing targets for complaints that are so diverse and unpredictable remains a challenge.
The increased workload during the fiscal year slowed down the Commission in its review of its policy suite over the planning period. The Commission’s policy suite is a combination of those policies developed by the Commission, as well as those policies that are used unchanged as issued by Treasury Board. The work will be resumed in 2009-10.
2.3 Lessons Learned
The Commission continues to learn from its experiences. And these experiences illustrate that the Commission must be capable of timely, well analysed and appropriate responses to operational demands for change. The changing case load and the calling of the Public Interest Hearing provide ample illustration.
The simple, straight-forward investigations are no longer the norm. As an example, during the year, the Commission significantly advanced an extremely complex and costly national investigation involving the integrated examination of numerous complaints from multiple individuals on common issues covering a period of years. This required the rigorous management and coordination of investigative resources to analyze thousands of pages of evidence, to interview many witnesses, to gather other relevant information and to develop meaningful findings and recommendations. Cases of this size led to the review of and improvements in the Commission’s structured evidence and document management system.
When the Chairperson, in March 2008, directed that the investigation into the complaints lodged by Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association move to a public hearing process, followed by the Attorney General of Canada requesting a judicial review in Federal Court, the Commission found itself in a funding crisis. Financial authorities had already been established for 2008-09 and, with the ongoing workload, there would not be sufficient funding to conduct the Public Interest Hearing and address the Federal Court challenges.
Very quickly, the Commission developed a successful business case for approximately $5 million in one-time funding, to be expended over three years, to support the increased financial and operational requirements arising from the conduct of the high-profile Public Interest Hearings and the Federal Court challenges to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Once the business case was approved, a Treasury Board Submission was prepared, based on the business case, requesting the funding. The Submission was approved and the Commission proceeded to add five new personnel to assist the Commission on a temporary basis with the Public Interest Hearings and the Federal Court proceedings.
The Commission needs to continue to use operational and strategic staffing information in its planning processes. A stable workforce makes a positive contribution to the quality of investigations conducted, reports released and recommendation made.
2.4 Benefits for Canadians
The Commission was established to provide independent, civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces’ military police. By its efforts, the Commission contributes to the professionalism of the military police, helping to ensure that they continue to enjoy the confidence of the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence and of all Canadian citizens.
Specific details regarding the efforts of the Commission and the impacts of those efforts on the military police, the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence and the lives of Canadians can be found on the Commission’s website at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
