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This page has been archived.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 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities of the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission). This Report sets out what the Commission will do over the next three years as it fulfills its role providing independent civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police. This includes: providing greater public accountability by the Military Police (MP) and the chain of command in relation to MP investigations; promoting and ensuring the highest standards of conduct of the MP in the performance of policing duties; and, discouraging interference in any MP investigations.

Three priorities are reflected in the Report: two related to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Complaints Resolution Program; and one related to improving governance in support of the Complaints Resolution Program. These priorities support the Commission’s strategic outcome which states: conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence (DND) and/or the Canadian Forces (CF).

Going forward, the Commission’s operating environment is expected to provide significant challenges including a diverse and complex caseload of conduct and interference complaints, the anticipated conclusion of the final phases of the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing relating to the ‘Failure to Investigate’ complaint and the conduct of the Fynes Public Interest Hearing which began on March 27, 2012 concerning a complaint regarding MP investigations related to the March 2008 death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. The results of the Second Independent Review of the National Defence Act (NDA) (C-25) are also anticipated in the coming year. The Commission had made proposals to the Review Authority in four areas and the degree to which these are addressed is important to further facilitating the achievement of the Commission’s oversight mandate. During the planning period, we will also be continuing our well-received Outreach Program to MP members and to other communities clarifying the Commission’s mission, mandate and complaints’ processes.

The professional efforts of Commission staff deserve recognition for their contributions to the effectiveness of Commission operations and I look forward to their ongoing support in the coming year. I also look forward to the support and expertise of two new Part-Time Commission Members, Mr. Hugh Muir and Mr. Steven Chabot, appointed in December for four-year terms. Finally, the Commission remains committed to continued productive collaboration with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Deputy Commander Canadian Forces Military Police Group/Professional Standards, other senior MP professionals, the MP community, and our partners and stakeholders.

Glenn M. Stannard, O.O.M.
Chairperson

Section I: Organizational Overview

Raison d’être

The Military Police Complaints Commission (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 achieved through an amendment to the National Defence Act (NDA) creating a new Part IV which sets out the 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.

Responsibilities

The Commission’s mandate is to review and investigate complaints concerning Military Police (MP) conduct and investigate allegations of interference in MP investigations. The Commission reports its findings and makes recommendations directly to the MP and the Department of National Defence (DND) leadership. The Commission’s mission is to ensure the highest standards of conduct of MP in the performance of policing duties and to discourage interference in any MP investigation.

The Commission fulfills its mandate and mission by exercising the following responsibilities:

• Monitoring investigations by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) of MP conduct complaints
• Reviewing the disposition of those complaints at the request of the complainant;
• Investigating complaints of interference; and
• Conducting public interest investigations and hearings.

A description of the conduct and interference complaints processes, as well as considerations associated with conducting public interest investigations and hearings, is contained within Section II of this Report entitled Program Activity – Complaints Resolution.

The Commission is a micro-agency headquartered in Ottawa. It currently has 19 full time employees (FTEs) and a program budget of $3.5 million.

The Commission is one of eight distinct but related organizations in the National Defence Portfolio. While it reports to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Commission is both administratively and legally independent from DND and the Canadian Forces (CF). The Commission is not subject to direction from the MND in respect of its operational mandate.

The Commission is an independent Federal government institution as defined under Schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA). As an independent oversight agency, the Commission must operate at a distance and with a degree of autonomy from government including the DND and the CF. All members of the Commission are civilians and are independent of the DND and the CF, in fulfilling their responsibilities and accountabilities in accordance with governing legislation, regulations and policies.

The Commission’s decisions, operations and administration must also be, and be seen to be, free from ministerial influence other than seeking the signature of the MND, 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.

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 CEO, statutory deputy head or Deputy Head as defined by the FAA 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.

In fulfilling its independent civilian oversight responsibilities, the Commission has a crucially important collaborative working relationship with the CFPM and the Deputy Commander Canadian Forces Military Police Group/ Professional Standards (DComd CF MP Gp/PS). On April 1, 2011, the CFPM assumed full command of all MP members who are directly involved in policing. The CFPM also assigns MP elements to other supported commanders under operational command.

The DComd CF MP Gp oversees the evaluation of MP functions to ensure consistency with jurisprudence and accepted Canadian policing standards, manages public complaint and internal MP misconduct investigations, administers the MP credentials review board and ensures adherence to the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct.

The CFPM is responsible for dealing with complaints about MP conduct in the first instance and the Commission has the authority to monitor the steps taken by the CFPM and to conduct its own reviews and investigations, as required. The Commission has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. Commission recommendations for improvements contained in its Interim and Final Reports are not binding on the CF and the DND. However, they do provide the opportunity to further enhance transparency and accountability.

Fostering quality, a mutually respectful working relationship between the Commission and the CFPM and DComd CF MP Gp facilitates the conduct of complaint investigations and the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented. It is noteworthy that for the sixth year in a row, 100% of the Commission’s recommendations have been accepted.

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

Strategic Outcome

Conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the DND and/or the CF.

Program Activities

• Complaints Resolution: informs the strategic outcome.
• Internal Services

Organizational Priorities

Priority	Type[1]	Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies)
Priority 1: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process.	Ongoing	Complaints Resolution
Priority 2: Resolution of complaints in a timelier manner and provision of meaningful recommendations.	Ongoing	Complaints Resolution
Description
Priority 1: Why is this a Priority? Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process is fundamental to achieving the Commission’s strategic outcome which is that conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the DND and/or the CF. Plans for meeting Priority 1: Continued, Effective Collaboration: The Commission will continue to work with the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), the CFPM, the DComd CF MP Gp/PS and other senior MP staff, partners and stakeholders to foster an environment that supports the acceptance and implementation of recommendations. Outreach: In order to promote a greater appreciation and understanding of its mandate and the complaints resolution process, the Commission will continue its Outreach Program at Canadian Forces bases and its presentations to participants at the Qualifying Level 5 training course at the Military Police Training Academy in Borden, Ontario. These base visits and other presentations allow stakeholders to gain a further appreciation of the Commission and how it operates, and they allow the Commission to further expand its knowledge of the many challenges faced by the MP. Priority 2: Why is this a Priority? This is a priority because 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 MP serve. Plans for meeting Priority 2: Refining the Planning and Conduct of Investigations: The Commission has no control over the complaints received and the resulting volume, complexity and size of the investigations that ensue. As a result, the Commission will continue to refine the planning and conduct of its investigations. Timely, well-completed investigations will result, where required, in meaningful recommendations for changes in MP conduct (including addressing systemic issues) that are accepted and implemented.

Priority	Type	Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies)
Priority 3: Improving Governance	Ongoing	Internal Services:
Description
Priority 3: Why is this a Priority? Improving governance is a priority because it provides fundamental support to the complaint resolution (PA) and to the achievement of the Commission’s strategic outcome. Plans for meeting Priority 3: Review and update of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF); The Commission has implemented several frameworks aligned with the MAF. The Commission will continue to update these frameworks in addition to ensuring adequate policies, procedures and process. The Commission will undergo self assessments through management reviews including all formal evaluations and audits to validate the frameworks and other instruments. Although, the Commission will continue to improve in areas such as financial administration, contracts, human resources and assets/facilities in addition to improve the reporting requirements to central agencies. The Commission will continue to optimize and ensure the sound stewardship of the resources entrusted to it. Planning and reporting will continue to be aligned with the Program Activity Architecture.

Risk Analysis

Operational Demands

The Commission manages an unpredictable and diverse portfolio of conduct and interference complaints involving increasingly complex and often unique issues. Investigating these complaints represents a significant workload for staff and for Commission Members involving lengthy resource-intensive research and data gathering as well as detailed analyses of voluminous oral and written evidence from Canadian and in some cases, international sources. Such activities impact the duration of investigations, the resources and time required to prepare Interim and Final Reports, and the overall cost.

The four-year appointment of two new Part-Time Commission Members on December 23, 2011 will assist the Commission in meeting some of these significant workload demands.

When investigations result in a decision to hold public hearings, the process is even further complicated and costly, often involving the need to seek additional funding from the Treasury Board as well as addressing detailed internal and external logistical issues.

The Commission will continue to follow its critical path in the conduct of investigations while remaining open to possible refinements to the critical path to accommodate unique circumstances. It will also examine case management, administrative and other options, such as procedural streamlining and possible technology applications, in order to ensure available resources continue to be optimized.

Financial Resources

The Commission has maintained the budget allocation of $3.5M since 2008 and has been able to cover the costs associated with increases due to collective agreements and an increased number of FTEs. The additional costs were covered in part by using salary allocations from vacant positions and using funds from operations. Due to the increased operational requirements, the Commission is undergoing a review of the budget allocations in order to align it with our current structure and operational needs.

Additional funds were required to address the major financial and operational requirements, including human resources, related to the significantly increased workload. As such, the Commission sought and secured additional funds to cover the cost of the Afghan and Fynes Public Interest Hearings (PIH).

The Commission is not resourced to conduct large public interest hearings. Since 2008-09, the Afghanistan PIH, and the resulting Federal Court challenges, has been ongoing. The cost of these hearings is beyond the existing financial resource level of the Commission and as a result, it was necessary to obtain additional funds over the three-year period ending in 2010-11.

In September 2011, the Commission sought and obtained an additional $2.3 million from Treasury Board to cover the cost of holding a new PIH into the Fynes complaint referenced earlier which began on March 27, 2012. This one-time funding is not part of the Commission base. Of this amount, $1 million of unused money from the Afghanistan PIH was transferred to support the first year of the Fynes PIH.

As a result of the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing (PIH) and the Federal Court application, the Commission requested and received an additional $5.0 million ($1.2 million in FY 2008-09; $2.6 million in FY 2009-10; $1.2 million in FY 2010-11) as well as an increase of 3 FTEs in FY 2009-10 reducing to 2 FTEs in 2010-l1. The final stages of the Afghanistan PIH were extended beyond FY 2010-11, into FY 2011-12. Along with its funding, it is expected to continue into the FY 2012-13.

Legislative Initiatives

In 2011, the MND appointed the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, to conduct the Second Independent Review of the NDA. On June 23, 2011 the Commission submitted a comprehensive brief to the Independent Review Authority containing proposals in four areas to facilitate the Commission’s fulfillment of its role to provide independent civilian oversight of the CF MP. The Commission is awaiting the report of the Independent Review Authority to determine to what degree its concerns with the NDA (the Commission’s governing legislation) have been incorporated and addressed. The following are the four areas highlighted: the scope of oversight; the Commission’s access to information; fair and efficient procedures; and MP independence.

Bill C-15 – Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act was tabled in the House of Commons on October 7, 2011, proposing a number of amendments to the National Defence Act primarily related to the military justice system for the Canadian Forces. One provision of the Bill relates to the proposed authority of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct military police investigations. In a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, the Commission expressed serious concerns regarding the potential impact of this provision on retaining the CFPM’s independence from the chain of command in the conduct of individual law enforcement investigations.

Human Resources

The Commission’s effectiveness depends to a great degree on its knowledgeable and stable workforce and on its service providers. However, like all micro-agencies, it is difficult to retain employees when the size and flatness of the organization impact 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 through activities (such as knowledge transfer and employee learning plans) and that vacancies are appropriately 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. The Commission relies on the use of contractors in order to complete certain deliverables.

The Commission’s Human Resource Plan will be kept current to ensure its alignment with government-wide priorities. The Commission will also continue to explore other opportunities to even further strengthen its management of human resources and reinforce a positive and productive working environment.

Collaboration

The Commission will continue to have ongoing discussions with the CFPM, the DComd CF MP Gr/PS and other senior MP staff in order to examine, address and resolve issues and to even further strengthen the complaints resolution process. Recommendations contained in the Commission Interim and Final Reports of investigations are not binding on the CF and DND. However, they do provide the opportunity to further enhance transparency and accountability. The Commission will continue to foster productive working relationships in order to facilitate the conduct of investigations and increase the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented.

Mandatory Contracting / Procurement

The Commission has recently undergone an audit to which end, an action plan was implemented. The Commission has re-aligned its procedures to ensure the mandatory contracting and procurement vehicles are followed including the increase documentation required by policy.

As a result, Commission staff has undergone training and has been coached regarding the updated changes to procedures. Forward looking and planning for any requirement for contracting of professional services or purchasing of goods is now essential. This includes increase consultation with contracting authorities, increase assurance of documentation based on the policy requirements and increase workload on staff to ensure these requirements meet all the policy requirements. The Commission’s staff will address these mandatory vehicles although operational effectiveness will always be paramount for the Commission to meet its mandate.

Planning Summary

Financial Resources ($ millions)

2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
4.6	3.7	3.5

Human Resources (FTEs)

2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
22	22	22

Strategic Outcome: Conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the DND and/or the CF.

Performance Indicators	Targets
Recommendations resulting from investigations of conduct or interference complaints are accepted by the DND and/or the CF.	70% of the recommendations accepted.
Investigations of conduct or interference complaints are resolved within targeted timeframes as established by the Commission Chairperson.	70% resolved within adjusted timeframes established by the Commission Chairperson.
70% of individual members receive remedial measures and/or improvements were made to MP policies and practices pursuant to investigations or conduct or interference complaints.	70% of recommendations implemented.
Number of presentations given on the mandate, role and responsibilities of the Commission.	10

Planning Summary Table
($ millions)

Program Activity	Forecast Spending 2011-12*	Planned Spending			Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
		2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
Complaints Resolution	4.4	3.2	2.3	2.1	Safe and Secure Canada
Internal Services	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.4	Safe and Secure Canada
Total Planned Spending	6.0	4.6	3.7	3.5

* This includes ongoing program funding, including the carry-forward, as well as the additional funding received for expenses related to the Amnesty PIH and relater Federal Court proceedings and the Fynes PIH.

The decrease in funding, in the planning years, is due to sunsetting funding for the Afghan PIH.

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.

In September 2011, the Commission sought and obtained an additional $2.3 million over a three year period from Treasury Board to cover the cost of holding a new PIH into the Fynes complaint regarding MP investigations relating to the death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. This one-time funding is not part of the Commission base. Of this amount, $1 million of unused money from the Afghanistan PIH was transferred to support the first year of the Fynes PIH.

As a result of the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing (PIH) and the associated Federal Court applications, the Commission requested and received an additional $5.0 million ($1.2 million in FY 2008-09; $2.6 million in FY 2009-10; $1.2 million in FY 2010-11) as well as an increase of 3 FTEs in FY 2009-10 reducing to 2 FTEs in 2010-l1. The final stages of the Afghanistan PIH were extended beyond FY 2010-11, into FY 2011-12 along with its funding.

Expenditure Profile

Departmental Spending Trend

[D]

Estimates by Vote

For information on our organizational appropriations, please see the 2012–13 Main Estimates publication.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page