ARCHIVED - Military Police Complaints Commission

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Chair’s Message

I am pleased to present the 2009-10 Report on Plans and Priorities of the Military Police Complaints Commission. This Report on Plans and Priorities sets out what the Commission intends to do over the next three years to provide greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police activities. The Commission is solely responsible to provide these independent oversight services, services that help to ensure that the military police perform their policing duties in accordance with the highest standards for the benefit of the Canadian Forces and the communities they serve, and, ultimately, all Canadians.

The current year has been an extremely challenging year for the Commission; the years ahead are expected to be even more so. Issues continuously arise that must be effectively addressed in order to be able to provide effective oversight. The Commission must successfully manage multiple, concurrent, increasingly complicated and costly investigations involving the review of thousands of pages of evidence and the interviewing of many witnesses. There is an increasingly broad scope of complaints and significantly expanded workload. Further, there is much greater sensitivity in the post-911 environment regarding privacy, privilege and national security issues associated, more generally, with the protection and disclosure of information, and more particularly, as contained within the provisions of specific legislation (the Canada Evidence Act, the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act) which requires balancing privacy rights and the public’s right of access to information.

Of particular note is that on March 12, 2008, I directed that the investigation into the complaints lodged by Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association move to a public interest hearing (PIH) process. The Attorney General of Canada responded by requesting a judicial review in Federal Court of the Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter. The requirement to hold a public interest hearing and to respond to the judicial review application has resulted in additional and increased costs and workload. As a result, the Commission requested and received almost $5 million dollars over the three fiscal years ending 2010-11 for the one time expenses of the public interest hearing and the related Federal Court proceedings. The planned use of these funds is explained in this report.

The staff of the Commission is extremely hard working and they do a remarkable job resolving the complaints the Commission receives and finding innovative solutions to the challenges it faces. It is through their efforts that the Commission can provide effective oversight services on behalf of all Canadians.

We must continue to advance the quality of our oversight services to help ensure that the military police are able to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and are able to conduct their investigations free of interference. This Report on Plans and Priorities details how the Commission will do so.

____________________
Peter A. Tinsley
Chair

Section I - Overview

1.1 Summary Information

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

A complaint may be lodged by any person about the conduct of a member of the military police. 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 oversees the military police complaints process, ensuring that it is accessible, transparent and fair to all concerned. The Commission, in its review of complaints identifies opportunities for improvement - be it in the behaviour of individual military police members or in the system of policies and procedures that govern the behaviour of all - and makes recommendations for change. These recommendations for change, when implemented, will 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 will also provide 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 $3.4 million. As a result of the public interest hearing and the Federal Court application, the Commission requested and received an additional $5.0 million ($1.2 million in FY 08/09; $2.6 million in FY 09/10; $1.2 million in FY 10/11) as well as an increase of 3 FTEs (increase of 3 FTEs in FY 09/10 reducing to 2 FTEs in 10/11).

The Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence.

Strategic Outcome

In order to effectively pursue its mandate, the Commission aims to achieve the following 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.

Program Activity Architecture

The relationship of the program activities, the priorities and the strategic outcome is illustrated in the diagram below.

1.2 Planning Summary

Financial Resources ($ millions)

The financial resources table below provides a summary of the total planned spending for the Military Police Complaints Commission for the next three fiscal years.

The total planned spending is allocated in the table below to better disclose how the monies are planned to be disbursed.

Human Resources (FTEs)

The human resources table below provides a summary of the total planned human resources for the Military Police Complaints Commission for the next three fiscal years.

The total planned FTEs are allocated in the table below to better disclose where the FTEs are planned to be utilized.

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.

* This include the ongoing program funding, including the carry-forward, as well as the additional funding received for expenses related to the Public Interest Hearing and Legal Proceedings regarding the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan

The priorities remain unchanged from the previous year. Providing the complaints resolution more effectively will result in timely investigations that confirm the correctness of the actions of the military police or provide recommendations, accepted and implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces, for improvement in policing activities. These confirmations and implemented recommendations will contribute to the maintenance and achievement of the highest standards of professional conduct by the military police.

Contribution of Priorities to Strategic Outcomes

Risk Analysis

Capacity and Timeliness

The Commission is addressing issues that are both unique and complex. The time required to conduct investigations and to complete the necessary research and analysis is growing. The complexity of the cases is resulting in thousands of pages of evidence and the need to identify, schedule and interview several witnesses across Canada and abroad. All of these factors contribute to both extending the duration of an investigation and length of the time required to write both interim and final reports. And the extra time involved increases the costs. The Commission will continue to review its critical path and its current use of technology in order to identify further cost and time savings.

Resources

The Commission is not resourced to conduct large public interest hearings. Prior to 2008-09, the Commission had one public interest hearing which cost approximately $100 thousand and was paid for out of the existing resource base. However, the estimated cost of the public interest hearing regarding the handling of Afghanistan detainees was beyond the existing resource level of the Commission. As a result, the Commission needed to seek additional funds over the three year period ending in 2010-11 to cover the one-time costs of both the public interest hearing as well as the resulting Federal Court challenges.

The Commission prepared a business case setting out the requirement for additional funding. The business case was approved but the receipt of the funds has been delayed because of the prorogation of Parliament. As the current year came to a close, the Commission was carefully monitoring its commitments and payments to ensure fund availability to continue with its ongoing operations while at the same time to carry on with the public interest investigations and hearing and to respond, as required, to the Federal Court applications.

It should be noted, however, that the Commission is not resourced to conduct a substantial public interest hearing and should the situation once again arise, it will once again require the Commission to seek additional funding and perhaps a permanent increase in its reference level.

Collaboration

The Commission will continue its practice of annual meetings with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and senior military police staff in order to discuss, address and resolve issues and even further strengthen the complaints resolution process. It will also continue its mutually beneficial working relationships with other government departments and agencies, professional associations and intra-government affiliations.

Recommendations for improvement in the Commission interim and final reports are not binding on the Canadian Forces and DND. The Commission will continue to foster quality working relationships in order to facilitate the conduct of the investigations and increase the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented.

Balancing Privacy Rights and the Public Interest

Appropriately balancing privacy rights of individuals versus the public interest’s right to know is a unique challenge influenced by the Privacy Act. Section 8 of the Federal Privacy Act allows the deputy head of an institution to disclose personal information where “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure.”

The National Defence Act specifically requires the Commission Chairperson to release a report outlining his findings and recommendations following a public interest investigation and/or hearing. This is consistent with the rational put forward when the Commission was created in 1999 “to provide independent civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces military police” and “to provide for greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police investigations.” Therefore, the Commission has a duty to ensure accountability and transparency in its processes and to serve the public’s right to know. Public trust and confidence are essential ingredients for effective policing.

The Commission believes that its legislative mandate allows, in certain situations, the use of personal information in its final reports. However, the Privacy Commissioner has set an extremely high threshold for disclosure i.e. “disclosures based on public health risk and overall safety of the Canadian public” and has not yet accepted this practice by the Commission. The Commission will continue to address these matters with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in order to find a solution that will satisfy the goals and interests of both organizations.

Human Resource Planning

The success that the Commission has achieved is due in large part to its knowledgeable and stable workforce. But like all small agencies, it is difficult to retain employees when, for the most part, the size and flatness of the organization limit opportunities for advancement. The Commission will continue to stress effective human resource planning, anticipating potential staff turnover and developing staffing strategies to help ensure that knowledge is retained and vacancies are quickly filled.

Expenditure Profile

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 federal court appeal.

The Departmental Spending Trend chart below illustrates the Commission spending trend from 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the 2006-07 to 2008-09 periods, the total spending includes actual spending during the period from all parliamentary appropriations, including the carry-forward adjustments. For the periods from 2009-10 until 2011-12, the total spending corresponds to the planned spending. The increase in 2008-09 until 2010-11 is due to the increased funding received for conducting the public interest hearing and for responding to the Federal Court applications.

Departmental Spending Trend

2009-10 Allocation of Funding by Program Activities

The funding will be for complaints resolution program activity as well as for internal services.

Voted and Statutory Items

Voted and Statutory Items displayed in the Main Estimates ($ millions)

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page