|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site | |||||
|
||||||||||
|
About DND / CF | Priorities | Careers | Operations | Defence Home | |||||
|
||||||||||
|
News Room | Navy | Army | Air Force | Portfolio | |||||
|
|
|
||
 DND/CF News
|
|
 
News ConferenceInvestigation into Alleged Criminal Actions in CroatiaUpdateJune 20, 2000 ***************************************NOTE: The following transcript is presented in the language(s) in which it occurred. There is no translation available. We are providing the transcript for your information. *************************************** June 20, 2000, 4:45 p.m. PRINCIPAL(S)/PRINCIPAUX: Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence SUBJECT: Investigation into Alleged Criminal Actions in Croatia Moderator: The Minister of National Defence has just arrived. Mesdames et messieurs, le ministre de la Défense nationale. Art Eggleton: As I indicated a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to make sure that we got to the truth of the matter, that we dealt with it in an appropriate fashion and I think we've progressed in that way with the announcement by the Chief of Defence Staff that the matter will be referred to the provincial crown attorney. I think that's an appropriate place for this to now be examined further as to whether criminal charges should be laid or not. Secondly, the special career review board to look at the actions of the people involved in this and the people in the chain of command right up to the battalion commander, an examination should be made of all of those people as well in terms of their conduct with respect to this. As you know General Patricia Samson, the Provost Marshall, has asked the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is an independent civilian base commission, to examine the question of the conduct of the National Investigation Service as it is outlined in the Sharpe report. I'll take your questions. Question: ..inaudible.. a question of the investigation of the NIS ..inaudible.. I'm sure the question that pretty well everyone has and Matt Stopford will have is not the legal inference the report has used about whether there was misleading but who misled, why that happened. Are you confident that this subsequent investigation of the NIS will satisfy the public, Matt Stopford and the rest of the military about what happened? Art Eggleton: I'm satisfied we'll get to the truth of the matter. We set up a civilian oversight commission to do exactly that. They're a new commission and they will now have the responsibility of looking at this matter. The Provost Marshall obviously does not agree with the conclusions of the Sharpe review group with respect to the conduct of this by the NIS. She sticks by her decision and by the advice that she received and it is now up to that commission to determine how the NIS conducted themselves with respect to this. Question: Just a question of the details on how that commission works. Are there any limitations in its mandate? Will they be free to investigate as widely as needed, call in witnesses, basically ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: Yes, they have all of that authority. Question: Mr. Eggleton, were you misled? Art Eggleton: Well that's what the Police Complaints Commission, the Military Police Complaints Commission is going to have to determine. I mean there is a suggestion that that may have happened. There is a counter suggestion that it didn't happen. Now it will be up to that independent civilian commission to determine what really did happen. Question: You read the report, the report has has quotes from what the Justice Department had said were possible legal avenues, very different from what we were told here 2 or 3 weeks ago, probably very different from what you understood them it to be. Am I right or wrong on that? Art Eggleton: The Provost Marshall sticks by her report and what she said here. She is saying that while the special review group looked at the 4 documents that were provided by the Justice Department, that there were in fact further verbal conversations to those Justice Department lawyers that led to the conclusion that the NIS took. Now, who is right in this matter will have to be determined in the matter before the Military Police Complaints Commission. Question: Are you satisfied with how this has been handled? Art Eggleton: I believe that we are heading in the direction of getting to the truth of the matter and that is what is important in this case. This happened 7 years ago and it would have been far better if it could have been cleared up at that time but it wasn't. It happened a long time ago but I want to make sure that we get to the truth of the matter and that we take the appropriate action. I believe we are well on our way to doing that. We're asking that the provincial crown attorney look at this question of criminal action in the criminal courts. We're asking a special career review board to look at the conduct and determine whether any administrative action as appropriate with the respect to anybody that was involved in this was identified in the investigation and the Military Police Complaints Commission has been asked by the Provost Marshall herself to in fact investigate the matter and determine whether the National Investigation Service acted in an appropriate fashion. That will get us to the truth. Question: ..inaudible.. could elaborate on what you were saying that you heard the Provost Marshall or, is she saying that the lawyers from the Justice Department verbally said oh no we made a mistake in that letter, in fact looking at this further we don't think you should lay criminal charges? Art Eggleton: She sticks by her report in which she said that the opinions that was receiving from the lawyers were to the effect that in fact criminal charges could not be laid. I think that has to be now cleared up both in terms of what advice she was given and the differences between her report and the report that has been received today from the special review group. That's got to be cleared up and that's what this independent citizen group, the Military Police Complaints Commission, will in fact do. Also, I think it's appropriate as the special review group has recommended and as the Chief of Defence Staff has also recommended that the provincial crown attorneys look at this question of charges being laid under the criminal code. Question: You mentioned provincial ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: It will be, it will be immediately. My understanding is that initially to the Ontario provincial crown. There's some 4 provinces however involved and there could be subsequent, other provincial crown attorneys involved but I understand Ontario will be the first. Question: Okay, now you've just said ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: The Provost Marshall doesn't have the commission, the government has it. Question: ..inaudible..? How many do we need to get ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: No, there's not a half dozen. What's important is to get to the truth of the matter. We have the complaints commission, we have the provincial crown attorney, that's their appropriate responsibility to look at this matter, to see if criminal action should be laid. This is the same as what would happen in a civilian situation. They're going to look at it, see if there is in fact charges to be laid under the criminal code and at the same time internal and administratively a special career review board. All of these things would be normal under those circumstances where those kind of charges are pending. So, I think these are the appropriate actions to be taken to get to the truth of the matter and that's what we have to do. We get to the truth of the matter and take the appropriate actions. Moderator: Last question to my right. Question: ..inaudible.. I mean you get an investigation and then another investigation investigating that one and then another one investigating that one. Are you getting ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: No, no. Don't try to confuse the situation here. There is very clear mandates that each of these entities have and I've already outlined to you what they are and they will carry out their responsibilities. Career review boards exist all the time. They will do what they do in terms of administration. We have the provincial crown attorneys who will do what they do and we now have a complaint, a suggestion that in fact the National Investigation Service and the police, these are people who are qualified police officers, peace officers, they're properly trained in that. In fact the investigation was led by an RCMP officer because we do have RCMP officers who are part of the National Investigation Service on secondment and they, in this particular case, one of their number led this investigation. So we now have this matter that is raised in the special review group's report and that will have to, since it deals with the question of whether the NIS properly conducted this investigation or not, working to the proper conclusion with respect to the laying of charges. That matter will be dealt with by that appropriate body and again in the civilian sector there are similar mechanisms that deal with those kinds of complaints. Question: ..inaudible.. I wasn't talking about the career review board, I was talking about this incidence that ..inaudible.. and then the NIS and this group comes and then now another group has to re-investigate to make sure that this will lead ..inaudible..? Art Eggleton: The NIS did an investigation of this matter. Let me help you out here. The NIS did an investigation into this matter and they came forward with their report. Their report said they were convinced that in fact there was wrongdoing here against Warrant Officer Stopford and that because the limitations and the law that existed at the time in terms of the National Defence Act, the code of service discipline did not allow for charges. At that point in time there was a 3 year limitation, that no longer exists by the way because the Act was changed a year ago, but it existed at the time and so it's the law of the time and the law that must be taken into consideration here. So, they said that you could not lay charges under that. They came to the conclusion after consultations written and verbal from the lawyers in the Justice Department that in fact it would not pass the test of being dealt with in the civilian court system under the criminal code. So they came out with that report. I indicated at the time I found that most disturbing. The CDS indicated that he would get a report from a special review group headed by General Sharpe and include 3 civilians on it as well and that they would report back in 2 weeks time as to the actions that should be taken to further deal with this matter. They've done exactly that, they've now made recommendations, you've had the Chief of Defence Staff who stood up here a few moments ago and has responded to those recommendations. We will continue to move this matter forward. I want to make sure that all of those parties give me the information that I can give to the Parliament of Canada, that I can give to the people of Canada to ensure that we get to the truth of the matter and take the appropriate actions. That's my responsiblity. Okay? Thank you. ****************************************** DISCLAIMER: Although care has been taken in preparing this transcript, the Director General Public Affairs (DGPA) does not and cannot guarantee its accuracy. While we do our best to ensure all the information provided is correct, the rapid pace of media operations prohibits close scrutiny of this transcript. DGPA shall not be liable for the accuracy of this transcript nor for delays or omissions therein. ****************************************** |
| | | | |
| This website is maintained by Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs) / ADM (PA) |
||||
| Date Modified: 2000-06-20 |  |
Important Notices | ||