ANNEXES

ANNEXE A – Biographies

Louise Cobetto Chairperson	Ms. Louise Cobetto is the first Chairperson of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Prior to her appointment on September 1, 1999, Ms. Cobetto was a member of the “Tribunal administratif du Québec” (1998-1999) and a member of the “Tribunal d'appel en matière de protection du territoire agricole” (1994-1998). From 1990 to 1994, Ms. Cobetto occupied the position of Deputy Commissioner in the Office of the Quebec Police Ethics Commissioner, having previously served as the Secretary of the Quebec Police Commission (1988-1990). She was a Special Advisor and Legal Counsel to the Minister of Electoral Reform for the Province of Quebec. In addition, Ms. Cobetto practiced law with Martineau Walker (now Fasken Martineau) in Montreal. A past member of the “Conférence des juges administratifs du Québec”, Ms. Cobetto is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE), a member of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE) and a member of the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals (CCAT). Ms. Cobetto graduated in 1980 with a degree in law from the University of Montreal, where she received the Deacon Kennedy award for her outstanding academic record. She was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1981.
Peter Seheult Member	Mr. Seheult practises law in Grand Falls, New Brunswick. He was a member of the New Brunswick Police Commission from 1995 to 2000, including two years as Chairperson. As well as serving as Legal Counsel and Director of Legal Education for the New Brunswick School Trustees Association, Mr. Seheult is a member of many professional committees, including the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals, the Council of the Canadian Bar Association, and the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE). Mr. Seheult holds a Bachelor of Law degree and a Master of Education degree from the University of New Brunswick. He is also trained in mediation, and conducts arbitrations under the Canada Labour Code, and is an Adjudicator in the Small Claims Court of New Brunswick.
Mr. Odilion Emond Member	Mr. Emond of Lac Mégantic, Quebec, brings the benefit of more than 35 years' experience in police work to the Commission. Mr. Emond joined the Sherbrooke Police Department in 1963, before joining the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1975. Over the course of the next 23 years, Mr. Emond held positions of increasing responsibility, including Head, Police Division with Interpol; Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate; Director, International Liaison and Protective Operations Directorate, and Assistant Commissioner and Commanding Officer “C” Division (Province of Quebec). Mr. Emond retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1998.
Mr. Henry Kostuck Member	Mr. Kostuck, from Orleans, Ontario, enjoyed an outstanding career with the Ontario Provincial Police, which he joined in 1956. During his more than 30 years with the Ontario Provincial Police, Mr. Kostuck served in a number of senior positions, including Chief Superintendent and Head, Field Operations Division in Toronto, a position he held until his retirement in 1988. After his retirement and prior to his appointment to the Military Police Complaints Commission, Mr. Kostuck served as an Investigator and Special Advisor to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GENERAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES

Ms. Johanne Gauthier was named General Counsel and Director of Legal Services to the Complaints Commission in September of 2001. As of late October 2003, Ms. Gauthier is also Acting Executive Director of the Complaints Commission.

A member of the Quebec Bar for more than ten years, Ms. Gauthier has substantial expertise and experience in criminal law, administrative law, investigation and police ethics.

Prior to joining the Complaints Commission, Ms. Gauthier was a civilian member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for over seven years, holding a number of positions of increasing responsibility, including Senior Prosecutor and Manager of Internal Affairs for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Immediately preceding her appointment to the Military Police Complaints Commission, Ms. Gauthier served as Legal Counsel to Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages.

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

Mr. Thomas Pedersen came to the Military Police Complaints Commission as Chief, Complaints Review and Investigations in April of 2001, and was promoted and appointed to the position of Director of Operations in November 2002.

Prior to his work with the Complaints Commission, Mr. Pedersen held a number of positions with increasing senior responsibilities in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, where he served as a specialist in the areas of analysis and investigation beginning in 1992.

Mr. Pedersen obtained his undergraduate degree at McGill University, and also holds a Master's Degree in Education from Harvard University. He is a member of the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals (CCAT) and the Canadian Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE).

CHIEF OF STAFF AND SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE CHAIRPERSON

Mr. Stanley Blythe joined the Complaints Commission as Chief of Staff and Special Advisor to the Chairperson in August of 2003.

Mr. Blythe was a member of the Canadian Forces for 31 years, including a number of years with the Judge Advocate General's organization. Following his retirement from the Canadian Forces in 1999, Mr. Blythe was appointed Court Martial Administrator responsible for managing the Office of the Chief Military Judge.

A graduate of the Royal Military College, Mr. Blythe also holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Alberta and a Master of Laws from the University of Ottawa.

ANNEX B – Executive , Management and Operations Committees of the Compliants Commission

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The senior committee of the Complaints Commission is the Executive Committee. The Chairperson of the Complaints Commission also chairs the Executive Committee, which normally meets once every month. The membership, in addition to the Chairperson, consists of the Executive Director, the Director of Legal Services, the Chief of Staff to the Chairperson and a part-time Member designated by the Chairperson.

The role of the Executive Committee is to consider and decide questions of policy, deal with major corporate matters such as the budget, the Annual Report and audits, and to consider and decide major administrative questions, such as organization and service agreements. The Committee may invite other Complaints Commission staff to brief it on specific agenda items, as required, and may occasionally be addressed by representatives from central agencies, other government departments or the private sector.

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

The Management Committee is chaired by the Executive Director and includes in its membership the Director of Legal Services, the Director of Operations, the Manager of Corporate Services, and the Chief of Staff to the Chairperson. It meets regularly at the call of its Chairperson to deal with matters such as policy implementation, significant decisions having to do with a range of support functions, and matters relating to the operation of the Complaints Commission such as record-keeping, contracting, finance and human resource issues. Other staff and/or consultants may be invited to attend for specific agenda items.

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

The Operations Committee is chaired by the Complaints Commission Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer. Its membership consists of the Director of Operations, the Director of Legal Services, employees of the Operations and/or Legal Services Directorate, as required and the Chief of Staff to the Chairperson. Members of the Complaints Commission are also members, and other Complaints Commission employees and consultants may attend when invited for specific agenda items. The role of the Committee is to deal with questions of operational policy and procedure, to consider reports and/or recommendations which could create precedents, to discuss legal opinions or advice which could have a significant impact on operations and to generally oversee the case-handling process.

ANNEX C – Organizational Chart

ANNEX D – Financial Summary

Although this annual report focuses on the Commission's activities for the year ending December 31, the following statement reflects the financial information in line with the annual appropriation from Parliament, which lapses on March 31.

Financial information included in the Departmental Performance Report, Supplementary Estimates A, the Report on Plans and Priorities and in the Public Accounts of Canada is consistent with that contained in this financial statement. The planned spending for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004 is based on management's best estimates and judgements.

Military Police Complaints Commission
Statement of Operations
For the Year Ending March 31
(in dollars)

	2003-04 Planned Spending	2002-03 Actual
Salaries, wages and other personnel costs	1,925,000	1,655,398
Contributions to employee benefit plans	359,000	332,190
Sub-total	2,284,000	1,987,588
Other operating expenditures	1,867,000	1,654,712
Total use of appropriation	4,151,000	3,642,300
Add: Cost of services provided by other government departments	136,400	142,000
Total Operating Costs	4,287,400	3,784,300

This second table provides a year-by-year comparison of the annual appropriation to the Complaints Commission from Parliament and actual spending by the Complaints Commission since its inception on December 1, 1999:

Fiscal year	Budget Allocation*	Actual Spending*	Variance*
1999-2000	$ 1,050	885	165
2000-2001	$ 4,010	3,660	350
2001-2002	$ 4,176	3,635	541
2002-2003	$ 4,278	3,642	636

*000's of dollars

Annual increases in the budget allocation are due to collective agreements, other related adjustments and certain funds carried over.

ANNEX E – The Complaint Process

The Military Police Complaints Commission has exclusive responsibility for reviews of conduct complaints and for the examination of complaints of interference. It is also responsible for monitoring how the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal deals with conduct complaints.

Complainants not satisfied with the Provost Marshal's disposition of their complaint about the conduct of military police can ask the Complaints Commission to review the matter.

Further, the Chairperson may, at any time in the public interest, cause the Complaints Commission to investigate either a conduct complaint or an interference complaint.

FILING A COMPLAINT

Anyone, whether a civilian or a member of the military, and whether they were affected personally, may complain about the conduct of Military Police members in the performance of their “policing duties or functions” (see Annex I).

Both conduct and interference complaints can be filed orally or in writing, to the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission, the Provost Marshal or the Judge Advocate General. In addition, a conduct complaint may be filed with any member of the Military Police.

Under the legislation, complaints are to be acknowledged as soon as practicable after they are received. The person who is the subject of the complaint is also to be given written notice of the substance of the complaint as soon as practicable, except in cases where the Provost Marshal or the Chairperson believes that such notice could adversely affect or hinder their respective investigations.

INFORMAL RESOLUTION

The legislation encourages the Provost Marshal to attempt, if appropriate and consistent with the regulations, and with the consent of both sides, to resolve conduct complaints in an informal manner.

If a complaint is resolved informally, the Provost Marshal is nonetheless required to prepare a written report of the details, to be signed by both sides, and notify the Chairperson of the resolution of the complaint.

TIME LIMITS

Normally, a complaint must be filed within one year of the incident in question. However, at the request of the complainant, the Chairperson can decide if it is reasonable in the circumstances to extend the time limit.

A second time limitation applies to complaints about incidents that occurred before the Complaints Commission's mandate came into force on December 1, 1999. Complaints about incidents before that date should be directed to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, who will deal with them according to the procedures in effect prior to the existence of the Complaints Commission.

CHAIRPERSON'S REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT

After completing the investigation of a conduct complaint, the Provost Marshal must provide a written report to both sides summarizing the complaint, setting out the findings of the investigation, and any action that will or will not be taken as a result of the investigation.

The Provost Marshal's delegate, the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards, usually writes this report, which must also include notice of the complainant's right to ask the Complaints Commission to review the matter. If a complainant is not satisfied with the disposition of the complaint, he or she can ask the Complaints Commission to review the matter.

This provision for review by the Complaints Commission also applies to conduct complaints that may be dismissed by the Provost Marshal on the grounds the complaint is “frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith,” or that the complaint would be dealt with more appropriately under another legislated procedure.

INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS

Military Police who conduct or supervise an investigation, or who have done so, can complain to the Complaints Commission about interference in or obstruction of their investigations by any Canadian Forces member of any rank, or by officials of the Department of National Defence.

An interference complaint may include abuse of authority and intimidation.

INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Commission's Chairperson may, at any time, cause the Complaints Commission to conduct an investigation, and, if warranted, hold a hearing on a complaint, even in cases where the complainant has withdrawn the complaint.

If it is a conduct complaint, this decision by the Chairperson relieves the Provost Marshal of the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.

In 2002, the Complaints Commission published the Guide Governing Public Interest Investigations conducted by the Military Police Complaints Commission to assist anyone involved in such an investigation to better understand their role. The Guide is available on the Commission Web site, or by contacting the Commission directly (see Annex J).

HEARINGS

The Complaints Commission has substantial powers in the conduct of hearings, including administering oaths and compelling witnesses to give evidence under oath and produce documents.

The Complaints Commission is also empowered to receive evidence and information, whether admissible in a court of law or not, subject to certain restrictions in the National Defence Act. Normally, hearings will be open to the public, although exceptions can be made when factors such as the administration of justice and national security are a concern.

Any person who appears before the Complaints Commission can choose to be represented by legal counsel at a hearing.

Procedures to be followed by all persons involved in a hearing before the Commission are set out in the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Military Police Complaints Commission, S.O.R./02-241, which came into force in June 2002. The Rules are available on the Complaints Commission Web site, or by contacting the Complaints Commission directly (see Annex J).

REPORTS

Every request for review submitted to the Chairperson, every investigation of an interference complaint and each public interest investigation or hearing leads to two reports – Interim and Final.

INTERIM REPORT

The interim report states the Chairperson's findings and recommendations or, if a hearing has been held, those of the Complaints Commission.

Normally, the interim report is submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Deputy Minister, depending on whether the complaint concerns a member of the military or a senior official in the Department, the Provost Marshal and the Judge Advocate General.

In the case of an interference complaint, the interim report is usually reviewed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, and for conduct complaints, the Provost Marshal, except in cases where they are the subject of the complaint, or are precluded from doing so for other reasons, for example, the principles of fairness and natural justice. In any event, the person who reviews the interim report must respond to the Chairperson and the Minister with a ‘Notice of Action,' outlining any action that has been taken or will be taken with respect to the complaint.

While not binding, if there is a refusal to act on any of the Chairperson's findings or recommendations, the Notice of Action must provide an explanation for not acting.

FINAL REPORT

After considering the official written response to the interim report (Notice of Action), the Chairperson prepares a final report of findings and recommendations. Copies of the final report are given to:

• the Minister of National Defence;
• the Deputy Minister of National Defence;
• the Chief of the Defence Staff;
• the Judge Advocate General;
• the Provost Marshal;
• the complainant;
• the person who is the subject of the complaint; and
• all persons who have satisfied the Commission that they have a substantial and direct interest in the complaint.

ANNEX F – The Complaints Process (Chart)

(1) At any time, in the public interest, the Chairperson may take over a complaint and cause the Commission to conduct an investigation (section 250.38).

(2) Does not apply to a conduct complaint of the type specified in regulations of the Governor in Council.

(3) In the public interest, the Chairperson may cause the Commission to conduct an investigation and, if warranted, hold a hearing (section 250.38).

(4) In the case of a hearing, the interim report is prepared by the Commission.

(5) According to the nature of the complaint, the status or the rank of the subject of the complaint, the person who provides the notice could be the Provost Marshal, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Deputy Minister or the Minister (section 250.49 and 250.5)

(6) Exceptionally, the Chairperson may ask the Provost Marshal to investigate.

ANNEX G – Case Statistics

*The total for files opened in 2003 does not reflect these two requests, as they were previously opened. Note: The numbers of complaints are listed in the year they were filed, although they may continue into the next year

Allegations of Misconduct by policing duties and functions:

(a) the conduct of an investigation:	31
(b) the rendering of assistance to the public:	7
(c) the execution of a warrant or another judicial process:	4
(d) the handling of evidence:	11
(e) the laying of a charge:	9
(f) attendance at a judicial proceeding:	1
(g) the enforcement of laws:	15
(h) responding to a complaint:	8
(i) the arrest or custody of a person:	3
Correspondence received from DPM PS:	483
Correspondence received from Complainant:	52
Correspondence received from others:	105
Letters sent:	869

Chairperson's Recommendations 1999-2003

	88% of the Chairperson's recommendations have been accepted
	58% of the accepted recommendations have been implemented
	42% of the accepted are pending

Chairperson's Recommendations 2003

	90% of the Chairperson's recommendations have been accepted
	60% of the accepted recommendations have been implemented
	40% of the accepted recommendations are pending

ANNEX H – Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations

INTERPRETATION

1. In these Regulations, “Act” means the National Defence Act. (Loi)

POLICING DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS

2. (1) For the purpose of subsection 250.18(1) of the Act, any of the following, if performed by a member of the military police, are policing duties or functions:

1. the conduct of an investigation;
2. the rendering of assistance to the public;
3. the execution of a warrant or another judicial process;
4. the handling of evidence;
5. the laying of a charge;
6. attendance at a judicial proceeding;
7. the enforcement of laws;
8. responding to a complaint; and
9. the arrest or custody of a person.

(2) For greater certainty, a duty or function performed by a member of the military police that relates to administration, training, or military operations that result from established military custom or practice, is not a policing duty or function.

WHEN NO INFORMAL RESOLUTION

3. Subsection 250.27(1) of the Act does not apply to a conduct complaint of any of the following types:

1. excessive use of force;
2. corruption;
3. the commission of a service of civil offence;
4. policies of the Canadian Forces Military Police;
5. the arrest of a person;
6. perjury;
7. abuse of authority; or
8. conduct that results in injury.

COMING INTO FORCE

4. These Regulations come into force on December 1, 1999.

ANNEX I – Summary of Military Police Complaints Commission Proposals to the Independent Five - Year Review of Amendments to the National Defence Act

On November 5, 2003, then-Minister of National Defence, the Honourable John McCallum, tabled in Parliament the Report of the Independent Review Authority, led by former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. The Authority was established to conduct the first five-year review of the provisions and operation of amendments made to the National Defence Act in 1998.

These changes, the vast majority of which were aimed at the modernization of the military justice system, represented the most significant overhaul of the legislative scheme for Canada's military since the National Defence Act was adopted in 1950. Canadians had become well-acquainted with the need for reform of the military justice system through the reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, 1995-97, and the Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigations, 1997.

The Complaints Commission was pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with Chief Justice Lamer and his team to provide its perspectives and input on how the provisions of the legislation dealing with Military Police complaints and oversight set out in Part IV of the Act could be improved. In all, the Complaints Commission made 17 specific proposals:

1. THAT a Member whose term has expired be granted the authority to continue to hear and decide a matter notwithstanding the expiry of his/her term (section 250.1).

The Chairperson and the other Members of the Complaints Commission are appointed by the Governor in Council for fixed terms of up to five years. While Commission Members are eligible for reappointment for further terms, reappointment is optional and so it could happen that a Member's term of office would expire while the Member is in the midst of dealing with a case under Part IV of the Act.

On the surface, this may appear to be a relatively minor issue, but this proposal speaks to the need for efficiency, timeliness, and fairness in the Part IV complaints process, as well as the desirability of avoiding delays associated with the departure of a Member in the middle of an ongoing case. This proposal would also enhance the independence of Complaints Commission Members and the integrity of the Complaints Commission's processes by ensuring that a decision not to reappoint a Member at the expiry of his or her term will not affect the handling of any ongoing cases.

2. THAT the complaints process be public interest driven (section 250.14).

Under the Act, the Complaints Commission has a duty to deal with complaints as expeditiously and informally as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. This is certainly as it should be, but the Complaints Commission believes the Act should extend this same obligation to others involved in the complaints process, since the Complaints Commission must await action from others in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence at various stages before it can finish dealing with a complaint.

The Complaints Commission also believes the Act should place an explicit obligation on all involved in administering the complaints process to act in the public interest. Complaints relating to military policing under Part IV of the Act are more than disputes between private individuals. There are broader considerations of the public good at play, and those charged with administering the complaints process must, therefore, always be required to act with an eye to the public interest and to look beyond the immediate interests of the parties to a complaint.

3. THAT the Complaints Commission be provided with an explicit authority to deal with matters before it through an informal resolution process (sections 250.14 and 250.27).

The Complaints Commission believes it should have the same authority to engage in informal dispute resolution of complaints as the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Where informal resolution is in the public interest and is otherwise appropriate, the need for efficient and judicious allocation of resources dictates that informal resolution should be an option for any complaint at any stage of the process.

4. THAT the details of the informal resolution of a complaint be provided to the Complaints Commission (sections 250.25 and 250.27(6)).

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal has the initial responsibility for handling complaints about military police conduct, and will normally take the lead role in investigating and disposing of the complaint. This is sensible, given the expertise and resources of the Office of the Provost Marshal, and its access to the relevant evidence and personnel. At the same time, any potential conflict of interest, or the appearance of one, inherent in the Provost Marshal's handling complaints about personnel who report to her is offset by the Complaints Commission's broad authority to monitor and oversee all stages of the process. Indeed, the credibility of the complaints process depends on transparency between the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Complaints Commission.

To ensure this transparency throughout the complaints process, this same principle should extend to the informal resolution of conduct complaints by the Provost Marshal. While section 250.27 of the Act obliges the Provost Marshal to notify the Complaints Commission of any such resolution, the Provost Marshal interprets this section to mean the Complaints Commission need be informed only that an informal resolution has been reached, and not the actual terms of the resolution.

The Complaints Commission contends this is contrary to the spirit of the Act and frustrates the system of checks and balances devised by Parliament. Complaints about military policing involve more than the interests of the complainant and the subject member. Denying the Complaints Commission access to the details of informal complaint resolutions ignores the public interest and may result in broader systemic or policy problems going unaddressed.

This approach to informal resolution also prevents the Complaints Commission from properly assessing whether to take over the handling of a complaint in the public interest.

The Complaints Commission also needs access to the details of informal resolutions in order to monitor the integrity of the informal resolution process; to ensure the terms of the informal resolution are appropriate to the nature and gravity of the conduct to which the complaint refers, and even whether informal resolution is properly available in a case in accordance with section 250.27(2) of the Act and section 3 of the Complaints Against the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations.

5. THAT the Complaints Commission be provided with an explicit authority to conduct investigations on its own initiative for conduct and interference complaints (sections 250.18 and 250.19).

The Complaints Commission believes that it would be in the public interest and provide for greater efficiency if it were given explicit authority to initiate complaint investigations. The Chair of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission has this authority under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

While the Act does give the Complaints Commission a broad monitoring and oversight role, the complaints process is complaint-driven, or rather complainant-driven. The involvement of the Complaints Commission depends on a formal complaint being filed, and, in the case of conduct complaints, the complainant requesting a review of the Provost Marshal's disposition of the matter.

This does not allow for situations where credible information may come to the attention of the Complaints Commission regarding a matter that could be the subject of a conduct or an interference complaint, but for various reasons no complaint or request for review is made (it should be noted here that the Act contains no guarantee of confidentiality in the handling of complaints and no special provision to protect complainants from harassment, reprisals or intimidation). In such situations, the Complaints Commission should be able to investigate or review a matter on its own initiative.

It can also happen that new allegations arise within the context of a review of a conduct complaint. Currently, these allegations must be referred back to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to be handled as a new complaint. It would be more efficient if the Complaints Commission could simply handle such allegations during the course of its review of the original complaint.

6. THAT the definition of interference be broadened to include any policing duties and functions, not only an investigation (section 250.19).

Currently, section 250.19 of the Act provides for complaints about interference in “military police investigations”. There are other policing duties and functions of Military Police, the laying of charges, for example, that must also be free from interference in order to protect the integrity of the military justice system.

7. THAT “improper” be removed in the English version of the definition of interference (section 250.19).

The English version of the National Defence Act refers to “improper interference” with a military police investigation, while the French version of the Act mentions simply “interference,” without qualification. It may be that extraordinary military circumstances could lead to a situation where an intervention in the conduct of a military police investigation could be seen as legitimate. Nonetheless, the Complaints Commission does not believe the framers of the Act, by using “improper” in the English version of section 250.19 intended to imply that interference with legitimate Military Police operations is ever “proper.”

8. THAT status be granted to “any person” to file an interference complaint (section 250.19).

The National Defence Act permits anyone to file a conduct complaint, but only a Military Police member in charge of an investigation, or his or her supervisor, can make an interference complaint. There may be situations where someone higher in the military hierarchy, or even a civilian, is in a better position to make the complaint, or even to be aware of the interference.

9. THAT sections 250.41(1), 250.45(1), 250.46, and 250.47 be amended to add the words “an investigation or” before the words “a hearing”.

The Complaints Commission has the power to compel witness testimony and the production of documents and other evidence if it elects to hold formal hearings in the public interest, but not in the conduct of an investigation in the public interest.

It should not be necessary to go to the added expense associated with formal public hearings simply to obtain the powers needed to conduct a proper investigation into a complaint.

The Complaints Commission is also recommending that the protections available to witnesses in pubic interest hearings be similarly extended to the investigative stage.

10. THAT the Military Police organization be statutorily established in the National Defence Act as an independent institution within the Canadian Forces.

The Military Police exist as a special military occupation within the Canadian Forces. In the Complaint Commission's view, it would be preferable that the Military Police, like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police services, have its own distinct statutory regime. This could enhance the independence of the Military Police by providing for a distinct framework for their organization, management and performance of their functions and duties.

11. THAT section 250.41(2) be amended to allow the Complaints Commission to receive, accept and obtain all information, including legal advice requested and received in the preparation, laying and referral of charges by the Military Police, in all Part IV processes.

The Complaints Commission respects and values the confidentiality of the solicitor-client relationship and readily acknowledges that legal advice by members of the Canadian Forces Judge Advocate General's Office to Military Police in the discharge of their duties is covered by solicitor-client privilege.

Nonetheless, the Complaints Commission maintains that this privilege must not prevent the Complaints Commission from being able to properly discharge its monitoring and oversight responsibilities. In some cases, the Complaints Commission's mandate clearly requires that it review the legal advice on which a Military Police member purports to rely for his or her conduct, such as in the case of an illegal search or arrest, or the improper laying of a charge. In such cases, it will be necessary to know not only what legal advice was given to the Military Police member, but also the information that he or she provided to the lawyer who gave the advice. If the Complaints Commission is to be charged with reviewing Canadian Forces Provost Marshal investigations into military police conduct, or taking over such investigations itself in the public interest, the Complaints Commission ought to have access to the same information and evidence as the Provost Marshal – who would certainly be entitled to review the legal advice received by her Military Police members.

12. THAT an offence under the Code of Service Discipline be created to protect against reprisals, harassment or intimidation, all participants, complainants, subject-members and witnesses in conduct and interference complaints processes.

For the Military Police complaints process to be effective and credible, it is important that there be explicit protection against reprisals and harassment for all participants in the process. Such protections exist in other legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act. Serving members of the Canadian Forces, including Military Police members, are particularly vulnerable to reprisals given the nature of military life. It is essential, therefore, that there be clear penal legislation to prohibit and sanction any efforts to harass, intimidate, or take reprisals against a person making a complaint or anyone else who cooperates in the complaint process.

13. THAT all investigations conducted by the Complaints Commission be deemed confidential under Part IV of the Act.

Given the particular vulnerability to reprisals of serving members of the Canadian Forces who would make either conduct or interference complaints under Part IV of the National Defence Act, we believe that special and explicit measures must be in place to protect complainants and others involved in the complaint process. While an anti-reprisal provision, as proposed in recommendation 12 above, would be an important step forward, the Complaints Commission believes that preventative measures are equally necessary.

While the Complaints Commission Members and staff are bound by general oaths of confidentiality, an explicit legislative requirement may nonetheless be useful given the applicability of Access to Information and Privacy legislation to the Commission.

14. THAT the cases where the Provost Marshal is precluded from dealing with complaints, such as responding in the Notice of Action, be broadened to include cases where she or her delegates were involved (sections 250.26(2) and 250.49(2)).

For the Military Police complaints process to have true credibility, it must strive at all times to avoid even the appearance of bias in the handling of complaints. The Act already provides for certain responsibilities to be transferred to the Chief of the Defence Staff in cases where the complaint involves the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. The Complaints Commission believes that the risk of actual or perceived bias may in some cases extend to situations where the complaint involves one of the Provost Marshal's direct subordinates, such as the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards or the Deputy Provost Marshal, Police.

15. THAT both parties be provided with a right to review (section 250.31(1)).

    The Complaints Commission believes that it would be more fair and efficient if the member who is the subject of the complaint, and not only the complainant, had the right to request a review by the Commission. In this way, subject-members who feel aggrieved by conduct complaints made against them, or are dissatisfied with the investigation and handling of the complaint, need not launch their own complaint. In such cases, it would be more expeditious to permit the Complaints Commission to deal with the subjectmember's objections by way of a review than to start a new investigation.

16. THAT the Interim Reports also be sent to parties for comments (sections 250.39 and 250.48).

Interim reports by the Complaints Commission on its complaint investigations or reviews are sent to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Deputy Minister, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and, in the case of interference complaints and public interest cases, the Judge Advocate General. The Complaints Commission believes that, in the interests of fairness and transparency, both the complainant and the subject of the complaint should also receive, and have the opportunity to comment on, the Complaints Commission's interim reports on complaints.

17. THAT the Complaints Commission be provided with an express authority to issue Special Reports.

Apart from its reports on particular complaints and its annual report to the Minister of National Defence, and through the Minister to Parliament, it is useful for the Complaints Commission to be able to publish reports on issues or topics of interest to the military, policing and police-oversight communities. Such special reports can have a proactive effect by clarifying and drawing attention to situations, policies and practices that may generate future complaints.

The Complaints Commission published a special report on the issue of interference with Military Police investigations in 2002. While the Complaints Commission does not believe express statutory authority is an absolute necessity to issuing special reports, it is desirable to underscore the legitimacy and utility of such reports in the Act.

ANNEX J – How to Reach the Commission

THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO REACH US AT THE MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS 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 a letter describing your situation and mail it, along with any supporting documents, to:

Military Police Complaints Commission
270 Albert Street,
10th floor,
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G8

Visit our office at the above address for a private consultation – appointments are recommended.

E-mail us at: commission@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca

Please do not send confidential information via e-mail – we cannot guarantee the security of electronic communications at this time.

Visit our web site at: www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca