August 30, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Minister's Message
• Context: Operations
• Context: Background
• Performance Discussion
• Strategic Outcome #1
• Strategic Outcome #2
• Strategic Outcome #3
• Annex A: Organization Chart
• Annex B: Complaints Handling Process
• Annex C: Case Statistics
• Annex D: Financial Performance
  • Table 1: Summary of Voted Appropriations
    
  • Table 2: Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending
    
  • Table 3: Historical Comparison of Total Planned versus Actual Spending
    
  • Table 4: Crosswalk between Strategic Outcomes and Business Links
• Annex E: How to Reach the Commission

Minister's Message

The Military Police Complaints Commission is still a relatively young organization, having come into force December 1, 1999; thus, this is but its second Departmental Performance Report.

Civilian oversight is an essential and accepted part of modern policing, and the Military Police Complaints Commission plays an important part in meeting the Government of Canada's commitment to modernizing the military justice system in Canada. Recommendations made by the Chairperson have led to specific changes in Military Police policy and procedures, further enhancing the professionalism of Canada's military police.

Establishing and developing an effective organization that meets the high standards of accountability demanded by Parliament and by Canadians is a challenging job in itself. That the Complaints Commission continues to make significant progress toward this goal while meeting its own exacting standards for the review and resolution of complaints is a remarkable achievement indeed.

It is with pleasure that I express my support for the Military Police Complaints Commission as it continues to mature as an organization, and plays its fundamental role in helping our military police maintain their position as a source of pride for all Canadians.

The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence

Context

The Complaints Commission is mandated to monitor and review complaints about the conduct of members of the Military Police in the performance of their policing duties or functions and to deal with complaints of interference with Military Police investigations. If considered to be in the public interest, the Chairperson may cause the Complaints Commission to conduct an investigation and, if warranted, to hold a public hearing into a conduct complaint or an interference complaint. An Annual Report, prepared by the Chairperson on the activities of the Complaints Commission during that year and containing any recommendations, is submitted to the Minister of National Defence for tabling in Parliament.

The Complaints Commission formulates findings and recommendations that may result in the censuring of the personal conduct of those who are the subject of complaint, but these findings and recommendations are intended first and foremost to rectify the situations leading to complaints in order to prevent their recurrence.

If the person reviewing findings or recommendations of the Chairperson decides not to act on them, the reasons for not acting must be provided. The mandate of the Complaints Commission is considered to be substantially fulfilled by rendering the handling of complaints concerning members of the Military Police more transparent and accessible.

The Complaints Commission is, and must be seen to be, impartial and fair in its dealings with both complainants and members of the Military Police, who are subjects of complaint. When monitoring and reviewing the Provost Marshal's disposition of a conduct complaint, the Complaints Commission does not act as an advocate for either the complainant or members of the Military Police. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and impartially to arrive at objective findings and recommendations based on the information provided by complainants, members of the Military Police, witnesses and any others who may assist in uncovering the truth concerning events being investigated.

The same standard is applied when the Complaints Commission deals with interference complaints lodged by a member of the Military Police. The power to investigate interference complaints lies exclusively with the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission.

For a complete description of the types of complaints, and the processes and procedures by which they are handled, as well as Annual Reports and other materials published by the Complaints Commission, please visit the Complaints Commission's Web site, at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca.

Background

The Complaints Commission came into being on December 1, 1999 to provide civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police. While civilian oversight has been considered an essential part of modern policing for some time, the Military Police organization is among the last major Canadian police services to be held accountable for its actions before a civilian oversight body. At the same time, it remains one of only a small handful of military police services in the world that are subject to civilian oversight.

The creation of the Complaints Commission was a key element of a significant modification and amendment of the National Defence Act undertaken by the Government of Canada in 1998, in fulfillment of its commitment to modernize Canada's military justice system. This commitment followed a series of incidents during the previous decade, most notably the Canadian Forces humanitarian mission to east Africa in the early 1990's, which had called the administration of justice in the Canadian military into serious question.

Employees of the Department of National Defence and members of the Canadian Forces, as well as the Canadian public, must have confidence in the integrity of the military justice system and in the role played by the Military Police within that system. Part of ensuring that confidence is a transparent process by which complaints concerning members of the Military Police can be examined in a thorough and professional manner. This examination must also be independent and unbiased. This is the role the Government of Canada envisioned for the Complaints Commission.

The Military Police Complaints Commission promotes the principles of integrity and fairness that will contribute to a climate of confidence with respect to the conduct of military police members in the performance of their policing duties and functions, and the absence of interference with military police investigations.

Performance Discussion

While the Complaints Commission maintains a strong focus on outcomes, it is in many ways difficult to measure its performance. In some cases, the outcome is very visible. For example, during an investigation of a complaint, the Chairperson may note problems with a particular Military Police procedure. As a result of a subsequent recommendation by the Chairperson, the procedure may be changed for the better, and a lasting contribution has been made to increasing the professionalism of Canada's Military Police.

As examples of the positive impact of the Complaints Commission, during the period covered by this report, recommendations made by the Chairperson led directly to improvements in Military Police policy and procedures for surveillance operations, and to the adoption of new, improved procedures for Military Police involvement in civil matters. Other recommendations have led to the development of an interim policy on police discretion for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Services (an arm of the Military Police), as well as additional guidance in the application of discretion, and improved training for investigators in report writing.

Other outcomes are somewhat less immediately tangible. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible to measure the impact of the Chairperson's findings in the investigation of an interference complaint. Naturally, the Complaints Commission hopes that by issuing a report of the findings of such an investigation, and making recommendations for changes, similar instances of interference will be less likely to occur in the future. Such a measurement would be possible only after collecting data over the course of many years.

One important measure of performance is the Complaints Commission's ability to deal with cases in a timely manner. In this area, it is important to note that 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. Thus, to a considerable extent, the Complaints Commission's performance in ensuring cases are resolved in a timely manner is dependent upon the cooperation and collaboration of others.

For this and other reasons, although it is independent of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, the Complaints Commission places a premium on maintaining a good working relationship with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and other stakeholders.

Given that the relationship between any civilian oversight body and the police agency being overseen is by its nature slightly adversarial, it is a challenge for both sides to ensure the lines of communication remain open. For the Complaints Commission to function effectively, and be an agent for positive change in the Military Police, the relationship between the Complaints Commission and the Provost Marshal in particular must be, if not collegial, at the very least characterized by trust and mutual respect.

While the quality of this relationship is a key factor in the Complaints Commission's performance, it is virtually impossible to measure. Nonetheless, one possible indicator of the effort both sides have put into this relationship is that, since the Complaints Commission was created, all but a handful of the Chairperson's recommendations have been accepted by the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, as the case may be.

Another performance challenge faced by the Complaints Commission, and a peculiarity of its operating environment, is the lack of control over the volume and complexity of complaints received. Consequently, the Complaints Commission must manage its activities to accommodate this ebb and flow of complaints in a cost-effective manner. Through the application of a risk management framework during the past year, as outlined under Strategic Outcome #1, the Complaints Commission has put in place contingencies to ensure the necessary resources are available at a reasonable cost when the volume of complaints exceeds the Complaints Commission's internal capacity to deal with each complaint in a full, fair and timely way.

For the Complaints Commission to be fully effective, it is essential that its primary clients, i.e., the Military Police, the members of the Canadian Forces and Canadians in general are aware of the Complaints Commission's existence and mandate. For this reason, the Complaints Commission continues to emphasize education and outreach activities, as described in Strategic Outcome #2.

Although the Complaints Commission believes the activities it has undertaken in the area of outreach over the period covered in this report have been successful in raising awareness of the Complaints Commission, it does not possess appropriate data to support this conclusion. Mechanisms to acquire the data needed to measure the success of these activities would normally form part of a Strategic Communications Plan. The Complaints Commission regrets it has as yet been unable to develop a Strategic Communications Plan, in large part due to the staffing difficulties described under Strategic Outcome #2.

Finally, the Complaints Commission is committed to providing high quality, results-based public service, and to being fully accountable to Parliament and the people of Canada for the public funds entrusted to its care.

Some aspects of financial forecasting are difficult for the Complaints Commission, again related to the unpredictable number and variety of complaints. The investigation associated with some cases may be relatively straightforward and brief, and the report issued by the Chairperson may be no more than a dozen pages in length. Other cases may require extensive investigation and interviews with many witnesses. Significant travel and other expenses may be incurred, and substantial resources expended in the preparation of a report that may exceed 200 pages in length.

These kinds of variables make financial planning and performance measurement a challenging undertaking.

The Complaints Commission has nonetheless made significant progress in developing its capacity to be accountable in a meaningful way, and these advances are described in Strategic Outcome #3. The Complaints Commission continues the process of implementing the principles of modern comptrollership, and has taken a number of steps to improve its efficiency, through prudent investments in information technology, and by establishing or extending its partnerships with other Government of Canada agencies and departments.

This progress notwithstanding, a number of opportunities for improvement were identified this past year in a detailed capacity assessment of the Complaints Commission performed by KPMG Consulting, under the sponsorship of Treasury Board Secretariat.

The capacity assessment provided a detailed accounting of both strengths and weaknesses in the organization, and the Complaints Commission considers this to have been a valuable exercise. Based on the results of this assessment, the Complaints Commission is developing action plans to address the opportunities identified. Among others, the Complaints Commission looks forward to:

• developing a formal annual business planning process;
• providing training to managers on modern management practices (e.g., leadership, communications, performance measurement, and business case analysis);
• developing key performance indicators (e.g., employee morale, cost per investigation, response time for investigations);
• establishing a formal evaluation and/or internal audit function/capability;
• standardizing the employee and management performance agreement/appraisal process;
• developing a consistent employee recognition/rewards program;
• improving career development and other retention issues to ensure a more sustainable workforce;
• creating a range of analytical tools and techniques available to Complaints Commission staff; and
• implementing a formal mechanism to identify and manage risks in an integrated manner.

As a final challenge, the Complaints Commission wishes to note the resources expended in meeting reporting requirements set out by Treasury Board Secretariat. A relatively small organization such as the Military Police Complaints Commission, devotes approximately 60% of its resources to ensuring it complies with these requirements. While fully cognizant of the absolute need to provide detailed performance information on a variety of programs and initiatives, the Complaints Commission is engaged with other members of the Government of Canada Small Agencies Administrators Network in exploring the possibility of developing a proposal to streamline the reporting requirements for small agencies.

Strategic Outcomes

• Enhance the Military Police Complaints Commission's informal and expeditious handling of complaints.

• Improve awareness and raise the profile of the Military Police Complaints Commission with respect to its mission, mandate, role and results achievement.

• Provide quality public service through greater efficiency in the operation of the Complaints Commission through technology, partnerships and adoption of best practices.

Strategic Outcome 1

Assuring complaints about the conduct of Military Police, and complaints by Military Police about interference with their investigations are dealt with in an informal and expeditious manner is fundamental to the mandate of the Military Police Complaints Commission. While the Complaints Commission can take steps to ensure each complaint is managed according to the highest professional standard for such matters, the difficulty in ensuring the informal and expeditious handling of complaints lies in the unpredictable volume of complaints referred to the Complaints Commission for resolution.

Over the past year, the Complaints Commission continued to develop its risk management strategy for those occasions when the volume and/or complexity of complaints jeopardizes its ability to resolve matters before the Complaints Commission in a timely fashion. As detailed in the following table, additional external resources have been identified that can be called upon on an as-and-when-needed basis. The Complaints Commission acquired and adapted for its own use case-tracking computer software, and managers continue to work closely with staff to ensure a healthy, productive workplace.

Due to the structure of the complaints process set out in the National Defence Act, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal play key roles in determining whether the process moves forward at a suitable pace. The Complaints Commission engages in ongoing consultations with these partners in a mutual effort to avoid unnecessary delays.

A total of $1.277 million was invested in achieving this strategic outcome during the 2002-2003 fiscal year, and the Complaints Commission is pleased to note it ended the 2002-2003 fiscal year with no backlog of outstanding complaints.

Strategic Outcome 1:

Enhance the Military Police Complaints Commission's informal and expeditious handling of complaints. ($1.277 M) Canadians want fair, equitable, affordable, timely and convenient access to information and services that affect them. Thus, as an agency of the Government of Canada, it is incumbent upon the Complaints Commission to focus on the needs of its clients as it carries out its responsibilities. This includes resolving matters that come before the Complaints Commission as informally and expeditiously as circumstances and the consideration of fairness permit.

Key Partners:

The complaints process (see Annex B) is such that the Military Police Complaints Commission alone cannot determine whether complaints are dealt with as informally and expeditiously as possible. The Complaints Commission continues to work with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Deputy Provost Marshal - Professional Standards, and the Judge Advocate General to ensure this is a shared priority.

Key Targets and Overall Results:

Establish contingencies to deal with fluctuations in the volume of complaints: The Complaints Commission refined its risk management strategy for occasions when the volume of complaints exceeds the capacity of the Complaints Commission's internal resources to deal with individual cases in an expeditious manner, and currently has no backlog of outstanding complaints. Develop policies and procedures for the complaints handling process by building on experience acquired to date within the Complaints Commission and by drawing on best practices from elsewhere: The Complaints Commission has developed a policy and procedures framework for the complaints handling process but, as the agency was established only three years ago, it does not yet possess historical data sufficient to support the full documentation and rationale for this policy. Nonetheless, and with the benefit of comments received from those who have filed complaints and from those who have been the subject of complaints, the Complaints Commission continues to refine this framework. Implement recruitment initiatives and provide training and professional development to ensure a well-functioning organization: As a small agency, the Complaints Commission is very sensitive to the relationship between stability and performance, and staffing has at times been a concern. The Complaints Commission stabilized its workforce in most areas of responsibility during the period covered by this report. The only exception was the Communications section, and staffing in this area was in progress as the 2002-2003 fiscal year came to an end. A capacity assessment completed by KPMG Consulting in 2002 found access to training for Complaints Commission employees to be "very good," although finding time for training was seen as a challenge by some employees. Training needs are identified in performance appraisals, and staff is encouraged to identify specific opportunities and prepare a business case to support the training proposed.

Program, resources and results linkages:

As part of its Risk Management strategy, the Complaints Commission undertook to identify additional external resources with investigative expertise and experience, and arranged to contract for their services on an as-and-when-needed basis. Similar arrangements have been made to ensure adequate administrative support when a high volume of complaints is received. As a result, the Complaints Commission ended the 2002-2003 fiscal year with no backlog of outstanding complaints. The Complaints Commission acquired a computerized case tracking system from the office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and adapted and enhanced the system to monitor the volume of complaints and track the progress of complaints being processed by the Complaints Commission. As a result, the Complaints Commission was able to quickly identify and address delays in the processing of complaints. The Complaints Commission is committed to the principles set out in the Public Service Modernization Act, and has already established a Union-Management Consultative Committee to build constructive, cooperative labour-management relations to support a healthy, productive workplace, and an organization capable of providing service of a consistent, high quality. As a result, feedback from clients and other stakeholders indicates a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of the reports prepared and submitted by the Chairperson as well as the work of the Complaints Commission in general.

Management Practices:

As part of its introduction of the principles of modern comptrollership, the Complaints Commission has identified and assessed the risks to the delivery of its single business line, i.e., the full, fair and expeditious handling of complaints brought to the Complaints Commission, and devised and implemented a strategy to manage these risks. Within two years, the Complaints Commission expects to have sufficient historical data to implement a credible internal performance monitoring and evaluation system in order to better link and report financial and non-financial information. The Complaints Commission is currently exploring development of this system, as well as a method to measure client satisfaction, and obtain feedback from clients and stakeholders on a more consistent basis.

Strategic Outcome 2

Raising awareness of the Complaints Commission and its role within the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Forces Military Police, the Department of National Defence, and the public in general is central to its ability to carry out its mandate to enhance the professionalism of Canada's Military Police. If members of the Canadian Forces and the public are not aware of their right to complain about the conduct of Military Police; if Military Police are not aware of the recourse available to them if they believe someone in the Canadian Forces or a senior official of the Department of National Defence has attempted to interfere with their investigations, the Complaints Commission becomes a hollow entity.

During the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the Complaints Commission invested $449,000 in efforts to reach these target audiences with information about its role and activities.

Unfortunately, although anecdotal evidence indicates awareness of the Complaints Commission is increasing, this strategic outcome must be described as only partially achieved, primarily due to unforeseen difficulties in staffing the Communications section. As a result, development of a strategic communications plan and other communications initiatives anticipated during the 2002-2003 fiscal year was delayed.

Nonetheless, as detailed below, and in a number of instances with the essential help and cooperation of its partners in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, the Complaints Commission did carry out a number of successful outreach activities. A key target, the introduction of the Complaints Commission Internet site, was reached.

Strategic Outcome 2:

Improve awareness and raise the profile of the Complaints Commission with respect to its mission, mandate, role and results achievement. ($449,000) It is essential that the public in Canada and wherever Canadian Forces Military Police are stationed know their right to complain about military police conduct. To enhance confidence in the military justice system, a priority of the Government of Canada, Military Police must also be aware of their right to complain when they believe another member of the Canadian Forces or an official of the Department of National Defence has attempted to interfere with their investigations. To achieve this outcome, the Complaints Commission undertook to increase awareness of the Complaints Commission among key stakeholders, broaden the Complaints Commission's corporate image through branding, marketing, and other outreach, and increase its citizen-centred focus by implementing electronic access to information about the Complaints Commission and its activities.

Key Partners:

The cooperation and assistance of the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and the Deputy Provost Marshal - Professional Standards is essential in arranging Complaints Commission outreach visits to Military Police detachments at Canadian Forces bases across Canada.

Key Targets and Overall Results:

Increase the number of presentations to Military Police detachments and other Canadian Forces personnel by the Chairperson, other Members and employees of the Complaints Commission on the topic of complaints in general and interference complaints in particular. Representatives of the Complaints Commission visited Military Police detachments in Borden, Gander, Goose Bay, Cold Lake and Trenton, where presentations about the Complaints Commission and its role were delivered, and meetings were held with members of the Canadian Forces and the Military Police. The Complaints Commission published and distributed its first Special Report in December of 2002, explaining the concept of interference with military police investigations, and detailing the role of the Complaints Commission in investigating and resolving complaints of this nature. The Chairperson addressed the Annual Symposium, Canadian Forces Military Police Branch in February of 2003. The hiring of a communications professional and the implementation of a communications strategy. Due to unforeseen difficulties in staffing the Communications section, a corporate communications strategy had not been developed at the end of the period covered by this report. The introduction of a permanent Complaints Commission Web site. The Complaints Commission Web site became fully functional in May of 2002. The site provides convenient access to extensive information about the Complaints Commission and its activities, including Annual Reports, speeches delivered by the Chairperson, other Members and employees of the Complaints Commission, case summaries and reports of public interest investigations conducted by the Complaints Commission. The site also offers an overview of the complaints process, including the procedure and forms for filing a complaint, and answers to commonly-asked questions.

Program, resources and results linkages:

The services of a communications professional were available to the Complaints Commission for only a short time during fiscal year 2002-2003, and thus most communications activities were undertaken on an ad hoc basis by the Complaints Commission. In some instances, the Complaints Commission contracted the services of communications consultants for assistance in the design and preparation of communications products. A total of approximately $120,000 was allocated to expenses related to visits to Canadian Forces bases, the preparation, publication and distribution of a Special Report entitled, "Interference with Military Police Investigations: What is it About?" and a companion pamphlet as well as other communications initiatives, including the Web site, preparation of the Complaints Commission Annual Report, and speeches delivered by the Chairperson and Members. The Complaints Commission has not yet developed a formal data gathering mechanism that will allow it to measure its profile within the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, the media and with Canadians in general. Informal monitoring of feedback related to presentations, to reports issued by the Complaints Commission, and from clients indicates awareness of the Complaints Commission has increased in the three years since it was established. The Complaints Commission Web site pages were visited a total of 120,571 times between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2003. It must be noted that due to the Web site's 2002-2003 configuration, it was not possible to determine how many unique visitors this total represents.

Management Practices:

Although the methods of collecting and the sources of the necessary information have been largely identified, the Complaints Commission does not yet have a formal mechanism to measure the impact of its communications activities. As a result, the Complaints Commission is not able to provide an accurate assessment of the outcomes achieved by the resources directed to these activities. Nonetheless, monitoring of feedback from clients and other stakeholders, as well as Web site traffic, indicates communications activities are having a beneficial impact in terms of raising awareness of the Complaints Commission and its activities.

Strategic Outcome 3

In keeping with the priorities of the Government of Canada, and of Canadians, the Military Police Complaints Commission continues to pursue the delivery of quality service to the public, while committing itself to greater efficiency in its operations through technology, partnerships and the adoption of best management practices.

A total of $1.927 million was invested in advancing this strategic outcome during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The Complaints Commission continued to expand its use of information technology, and broaden its partnerships in order both to improve the quality of the service it delivers, and the efficiency with which those services are delivered.

The Complaints Commission is a relatively young agency, and it is also a small agency expected to deliver what can often be a complex service. It admits readily that providing quality service while at the same time developing and implementing management structures in line with the principles of modern comptrollership is a challenge, but is able to report substantial progress, detailed below, during the period covered by this report.

An important development during the 2002-2003 fiscal year was the completion of a capacity assessment of the Complaints Commission by KPMG Consulting, sponsored by Treasury Board Secretariat. This frank and detailed assessment identified a number of opportunities through which the Complaints Commission can enhance its management practices and add more meaning to its financial reporting. Before the end of the fiscal year, the Complaints Commission had begun to develop action plans to avail itself of the opportunities identified in the assessment.

Strategic Outcome 3:

Provide quality public service through greater efficiency in the operation of the Complaints Commission through technology, partnerships and the adoption of best practices. ($1.927 million) As an agency of the Government of Canada, the Complaints Commission is committed to the fundamental principle that, as stated in Budget 2003, "Canadians have a right to know what is achieved through the use of their tax dollars." In pursuing this outcome, the Complaints Commission has undertaken to maintain or improve service delivery and a continued commitment to modern comptrollership; to benefit through greater collaboration with other small agencies, or through the introduction of alternative service delivery practices, and by prudent investment in technology to promote a results-based approach to service delivery.

Key Partners:

KPMG Consulting completed a capacity assessment of the Complaints Commission during the period covered by this report, identifying a number of opportunities for improvement in management and accountability. Integrated human resources services, including pay and benefits, are now provided by Shared Human Resources Services through a partnership agreement with Public Works and Government Services Canada. Varying degrees of information technology expertise is obtained through a partnership with Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services, also operated by Public Works and Government Services Canada. The Complaints Commission is a member of the Government of Canada Small Agencies Administrators Network through which it is able to benefit from the experience of more mature small agencies, and explore opportunities for collaboration and sharing of resources. The Complaints Commission also uses the Common Departmental Financial System, which is supported by Public Works and Government Services Canada. With the establishment and centralization of the records management function, the Complaints Commission is currently consulting with the National Archivist of Canada on the development of a schedule for appropriate document storage and disposition, and to obtain the appropriate delegated authority.

Key Targets and Overall Results:

Install a Records Management Information System and expand the functionality of other common systems applications previously implemented by the Complaints Commission. The Complaints Commission installed a computerized Records Management Information System. Case management software acquired through an arrangement with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal was adapted to enhance its functionality in order to meet the Complaints Commission's specific needs. Establish partnerships with other agencies or through contracting out in the provision of common support services. The Complaints Commission contracts with Public Works and Government Services Canada for the provision of Human Resources services, including recruitment. Selected Information Technology services, such as Web hosting and firewall management, are also provided by a contract arrangement with Public Works and Government Services Canada. Share experience and knowledge through the Small Agencies Administrators Network and other fora. The Complaints Commission participates in the information and knowledge sharing opportunities offered by its membership in the Small Agencies Administrators Network. The Chairperson and several members of the Complaints Commission staff are active in the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, an important source of information and trends in the management and operation of civilian oversight agencies. Stay abreast of the Government On-Line initiative in the provision of electronic connections for Canadians to the Complaints Commission's services and information. The Complaints Commission's efforts to implement the use of Public Key Infrastructure to address security concerns associated with electronic communication, and thus allow secure transmission of sensitive information over the Internet were unsuccessful, due to technical difficulties that have since been overcome.

Program, resources and results linkages:

The Complaints Commission deployed a Records Management Information System, in compliance with Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines. A total of $12,624 was allocated to this successful outcome. Considerable resources were expended in meeting Treasury Board Secretariat reporting requirements over the course of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The Complaints Commission continues to consult with other members of the Small Agencies Administrators Network on the possibility of developing a proposal that would streamline the reporting requirements for small agencies without damaging their integrity and usefulness. In consultation with its partners at Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services, the Complaints Commission has developed a Government-On-Line Strategy to work toward compliance with Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines, including "common look and feel" requirements for the Complaints Commission Web site. A total of $20,000 was allocated to this partially-completed initiative. Now that the technical difficulties have been resolved, the necessary infrastructure is in place and all preparatory work and testing has been completed for the implementation of Public Key Infrastructure by the Complaints Commission. Approximately $20,000 was allocated to this initiative; a further investment will be required to reach the desired outcome. A substantial effort was made to develop internal service standards for business processes directly linked to serving clients and stakeholders.

Management Practices:

As a relatively young agency, the Complaints Commission has yet to complete full implementation of the principles of modern comptrollership, but the process is well underway. A capacity assessment completed by KPMG Consulting in the 2002-2003 fiscal year found the Complaints Commission had strengthened its management practices, putting "in place a number of management practices, such as delegation of authorities, lines of communication and a new organization chart." The capacity assessment also noted that: The human resources function "has been outsourced in an effort to ensure effective and efficient use of resources and Human Resources service delivery." "A number of systems/procedures have been put in place, including the case management tracking system, records management information system…and financial system." Other important improvements identified in the operation of the Complaints Commission through technology, partnerships and the adoption of best practices included increased financial flexibility, strong quality control, the development of a strategic plan, and the establishment of core values for the organization. The capacity assessment also identified a number of opportunities for the Complaints Commission to enhance its operations and accountability framework, and action plans are being developed to address these.

ANNEX A
Organization Chart

ANNEX B
Complaints Handling Process

ANNEX C
Case Statistics 1 April 2002 - 31 March 2003

1. The conduct of investigation (76)
2. The rendering of assistance to the public (19)
3. The execution of a warrant or another judicial process (7)
4. The handling of evidence (21)
5. The laying of a charge (12)
6. Attendance at a judicial proceeding (1)
7. The enforcement of laws (21)
8. Responding to a complaint (12)
9. The arrest or custody of a person (26)

Operational Files

62 Conduct Complaints
4 Requests for Reviews
2 Investigations in the Public Interest
2 Interference Complaint
1 Request to Withdraw Complaint

Reports by the Chairperson

1. Findings (180)
2. Recommendations (60)
3. Interim Report (15)
4. Final Reports (16)

ANNEX D
Financial Performance

The Military Police Complaints Commission is a single business line agency; the pertinent financial tables are as follows:

Table 1: Summary of Voted Appropriations

The reader may notice the difference in the figures reported for Planned Spending, Total Authorities, and Actual Spending. Estimates of Planned Spending are made some months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and, as circumstances and requirements may change from the time these estimates are tabled, appropriations are voted and the actual spending occurs, it is not unusual for these figures to be at variance. Actual spending by the Complaints Commission for the 2002-2003 fiscal year was somewhat lower than anticipated due to delays in staffing four positions. In addition, some voted appropriations were made late in the period covered by the report, thus some planned spending was deferred beyond the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 2003.

(thousands of dollars)
		2002-2003
Vote		Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
	Military Police Complaints Commission
20	Operating Expenditures	4,144	3,946	3,310
(S)	Contributions to Employee Benefit Plan	348	332	332
	Total	4,492	4,278	3,642
Planned Spending as reflected in the Report on Plans and Priorities 2002-03 Total Authorities are comprised of Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates plus other authorities Actual Spending as reflected in the Public Accounts 2002-03

Table 2: Comparison of Total Planned Spending to Actual Spending

This table illustrates the total net cost of Military Police Complaints Commission operations for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, including the cost of services received from other departments without charge.

(thousands of dollars)
	2002-2003
Vote	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
Military Police Complaints Commission
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)	23.5	23.5	23.5
Operating1	4,492	4,278	3,642
Capital	-	-	-
Total Gross Expenditures	4,492	4,278	3,642
Less: Respendable Revenues	-	-	-
Total Net Expenditures	4,492	4,278	3,642
Other Revenues and Expenditures
Cost of services provided by other departments2			142
Net Cost of the Program	4,492	4,278	3,784
Planned Spending as reflected in the Report on Plans and Priorities 2002-03 Total Authorities are comprised of Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates plus other authorities Actual Spending as reflected in the Public Accounts 2002-03 Operating includes contributions to employee benefit plans Includes the employer's share of insurance premiums and costs paid by Treasury Board Secretariat.

Table 3: Historical Comparison of Total Planned versus Actual Spending

As mentioned in the footnote to this table, the Complaints Commission's financial systems became operational partway through the 2000-2001 fiscal year, thus an historical comparison can be made only to the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

(thousands of dollars)
			2002-2003
Vote	Actual 2000-2001	Actual 2001-2002	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
Military Police Complaints Commission		3,635	4,492	4,278	3,642
Total		3,635	4,492	4,278	3,642
Planned Spending as reflected in the Report on Plans and Priorities 2002-03 Total Authorities are comprised of Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates plus other authorities Actual Spending as reflected in the Public Accounts 2002-03 Note: fiscal year 2001-2002 was the Complaints Commission's first full year of operation of it's financial reporting systems. Therefore a historical comparison of previous year's expenditures is not available.

Table 4: Crosswalk Between Strategic Outcomes and Business Links

This table illustrates the relationship between planned and actual spending for each of the three strategic outcomes identified by the Complaints Commission for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The Complaints Commission's single business line is the investigation and review of complaints. Total spending includes all costs related to this business line, including such items as payments for the services of outside investigators under contractual agreements with the Complaints Commission; publication of the Chairperson's interim and final reports of reviews and investigations; publication and distribution of the 2002 Special Report on interference complaints, and costs associated with Complaints Commission staff visits to Canadian Forces Bases across Canada.

(thousands of dollars)
	Strategic Outcomes
	Expeditious Handling of Complaints	Raise Profile of Complaints Commission	Greater Efficiency in Complaints Commission Operations	Total
PLANNED
Investigation and Review of Complaints	1,277	449	1,927	3,653
Total	1,277	449	1,927	3,653
EXPENDED
Investigation and Review of Complaints	1,015	446	1,849	3,310
Total	1,015	446	1,849	3,310

ANNEX E
HOW TO REACH THE COMMISSION

Call our information line at (613) 947-5625 or toll-free at 1 800 632-0566 and speak to an intake officer.

Send us a fax at (613) 947-5713 or toll-free at 1 877 947-5713.

Write us a letter describing your situation and mail it with any supporting documents to:

Military Police Complaints Commission
270 Albert Street
10th Floor
Ottawa ON KIP 5G8

Visit our office for a private consultation.
Appointments are recommended.

E-mail us at: commission@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca.
Do not send confidential information.
We cannot guarantee confidentiality at this time.

Visit our website at: www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca.