Military Police Complaints Commission -- Publications

[Back to Main Page]

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRPERSON

Message From the Chairperson

Me Louise Cobetto
Chairperson

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.

INTRODUCTION

Complaints concerning members of the Canadian Forces military police must be thoroughly and professionally examined. That examination must be independent and unbiased. 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.

The Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission) has now been in existence for over two years, having begun its formal operations on December 1, 1999. My goal has been to ensure that Canada’s military justice system and those affected by that system are well served by the Commission as an independent, external oversight agency.

The military police is one of the last police agencies in Canada to adopt a professional code of conduct. Such codes are the cornerstone of policing. The military police is also one of the last forces to be held accountable for its actions before a civilian oversight agency. Clearly, I am pleased, along with Commission staff, to participate in and implement these important changes. These changes are promoting higher professional standards — standards by which all police forces are judged.

INTEGRATING THE COMMISSION INTO THE MILITARY “LANDSCAPE”

Although the Commission is a young organization,its achievements have been significant. Already, it has become part of the military justice “landscape”. I am particularly proud to report that the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal have accepted all the findings and recommendations that the Commission has submitted to them in its reports to date.

The independence of the military police and the Provost Marshal are at the heart of the military justice system.

Furthermore, Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan, S.C., Commission Member, and I were consulted this year during the independent review of the Accountability Framework between the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal that was adopted in 1998. We want to be able to contribute to the enhancement of the military justice system, and we welcome the chance to express our views. In particular, we welcomed the framework study, which dealt in part with issues of military police independence. Since its inception, the Commission has had a keen interest in ensuring the independence of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal as an institution within the Canadian Forces. Independence of the military police and the Provost Marshal are at the heart of the military justice system.

INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS FEAR OF REPRISALS

I continue to be concerned about the possible reluctance of military police members to make interference complaints against those holding more senior ranks for fear of reprisals.The National Defence Act (the Act) expressly permits members of the military police to make interference complaints about a superior officer. As a practical matter,however,certain members may fear reprisals if they make an interference complaint about someone more senior in rank. For the complaints process to work, military police members must be protected to the extent possible against such reprisals. Even a simple perception that reprisals may occur is a problem. Both feared and actual reprisals will stifle the making of legitimate interference complaints. Military police members should not have to worry that their performance evaluations, employment, promotional opportunities or future assignments are in jeopardy if they rely on a redress mechanism established by the Act. I will continue to look for ways to protect military police members against such reprisals.

NEW DEMANDS ON THE CANADIAN FORCES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

The year 2001 saw extraordinary new demands placed on the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence as their work took on the complex added dimension of responding to terrorism.The work of this Commission may seem remote from the events of September 11, but in important ways it is not. Military police members assumed a significant new workload after the events of September 11 because of the heightened level of security on bases/wings and preparations for deployment in Afghanistan. The more active operational role of the Canadian Forces and the military police may give rise to an increase in complaints to this Commission. It may also give rise to logistical issues such as dealing with complaints about conduct that occur in distant foreign jurisdictions, and the need to inform civilians in other countries where Canadian Forces military police are deployed that they have a right to file conduct complaints.

Members of the Canadian Forces deserve to know that their military police, and their justice system in general, are efficient, fair and operating in their interests.

The members of our military must have confidence in their military police. Given the many difficult tasks our military forces now face,we cannot afford deficiencies in military policing. Such deficiencies would be tremendously demoralizing to members at a time when morale is vital to cohesion and, in some cases, survival. Indeed, the members of the Canadian Forces deserve to know that their military police, and their justice system in general, are efficient, fair and operating in their interests.

This being said,members of the military police must be able to carry out their policing duties free of interference in their investigations. This will further assure the smooth functioning of the military justice system.

The Commission will continue to promote and secure greater fairness in the military justice system through monitoring the work relating to the military police.

OUTREACH

During the past year, I made presentations to the newly appointed military police members, intermediate and senior members and the staff, at the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy in Borden. I also visited the Base Commander and military police members at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, as well as the Wing Commander and members of the military police at 22 Wing, North Bay.

The Commission will continue to promote and secure greater fairness in the military justice system through monitoring the work relating to the military police.

In March 2001, I addressed the Military Police Advisory Committee, chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, about “The Commission: One Year After.” I also participated in the activities of two civilian oversight agencies — the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE) and the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE). In June 2001, I addressed the joint CACOLE-IACOLE conference in Quebec City on “Civilian Oversight in an International and National Environment: Human Rights and Accountable Policing.” At that CACOLE general meeting held during this joint conference, I was elected as a member of the Board of Directors.

A tour of Canadian Forces bases/wings on the West Coast and in the Atlantic Provinces, as well as selected bases/wings in Ontario and Quebec was planned for the autumn of 2001, but was cancelled following the terrorist attacks of September 11. I hope that the coming year will permit me to play a more significant educational and outreach role. I believe that it is an essential aspect of my mandate to better understand both the environment in which military policing takes place and the challenges presented to military police. With that in mind, I intend to continue to meet, not only with members of the military police, but also with members of the Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence personnel and other key stakeholders.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

In my previous Annual Report, I mentioned that the Commission should take time during 2001 to consolidate its achievements and evaluate its organizational structure and operations to always ensure a service that is both professional and efficient. The Commission has taken this opportunity to enhance its organizational structure to better respond to the needs of the military police, Canadian Forces members, employees of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian public. To this end, the Operations Directorate is nearing its full complement and I am pleased to announce that the Legal Services Directorate is fully staffed.

The Commission’s case tracking system, based on a similar program developed for the Provost Marshal’s office, became operational in 2001. I would like to thank the Provost Marshal for sharing this program with the Commission, thus permitting its cost-effective implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I take particular pleasure in acknowledging the exceptional contribution of Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan, S.C., former Chief of Police for the City of Ottawa and now a part-time member of the Commission.I have always been able to count on his support and have benefited greatly from his vast policing experience, his judgment and his wisdom. He has been an invaluable colleague since we were appointed to the Commission in September 1999. He participates actively in our work. The Commission staff joins me in recognizing his contribution and in expressing our heartfelt appreciation.

With regret,Mr.Paul Duffie,Q.C., a part-time member of the Commission,resigned in December 2001 for professional reasons. Because of Mr. Duffie’s thriving law practice in New Brunswick, he was unable to contribute as much to the work of the Commission as he would have liked. I very much appreciated his assistance during our start up phase. I thank Mr. Duffie for his contribution to our organization and offer my best wishes for his future endeavours.

I also thank the very professional and competent staff with whom I have had the pleasure to work this past year. They have so capably faced the many challenges of bringing this young Commission into a state of full operation, all the while exhibiting true dedication and a spirit of camaraderie.

Louise Cobetto
Chairperson
Military Police Complaints Commission

THE SUPPORTERS

THE SUPPORTERS ARE OFTEN SHOWN IN A FEROCIOUS MANNER “RAMPANT”. THE HISTORY BEHIND THE LION AND THE UNICORN MAY COME FROM WHEN KING JAMES VI OF SCOTLAND BECAME JAMES I OF ENGLAND IN 1603. HE WAS THE FIRST MONARCH TO HAVE THE LION (ENGLAND) AND THE UNICORN (SCOTLAND) ON HIS ROYAL SHIELDS. THE SUPPORTERS ON THE CANADIAN COAT OF ARMS SHOW A LION ON THE SHIELD’S RIGHT HOLDING A SILVER LANCE TOPPED WITH GOLD, FLYING THE ROYAL UNION FLAG, AND ON THE SHIELD’S LEFT IS A UNICORN WITH A GOLD HORN, MANE, AND HOOFS. AROUND THE UNICORN’S NECK IS A GOLD, CHAINED CROWN OF CROSSES AND FLEUR-DE-LIS. THE FLAG FLYING FROM THE UNICORN’S LANCE IS THAT OF ROYALIST FRANCE. THESE REPRESENT THE TWO FOUNDING NATIONS THAT ESTABLISHED CANADA’S FIRST GOVERNING BODIES AND CUSTOMS.

Last updated: 2003-12-21

Important Notices

TABLE OF CONTENTS