The arms of Canada
Military Police complaints Commission of CanadaCommission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire du CanadaCanada
 Skip headings and go to the navigation of this page  Skip headings and navigation and go to the content of the page
 FranÇais  Contact us  Help  Search  Canada Site
 Home  What's new  Frenquently Asked Questions  Site Map
Canadian Coat of Arms
Publications
spacer

VII: Chairperson's Concluding Statement Subsequent to the Investigation (Interim Report)

Back to table of contents

At the conclusion of the investigation by the Complaints Commission, the Chairperson provided the following concluding statement in her interim investigation report dated June 19, 2002:

"The complaints that formed the basis of the present report highlight what can go wrong with well-intentioned Military Police actions. The genesis of the problems uncovered in the Commission's investigation started many years ago with expressions of concern about the lack of independence of the Military Police within the Canadian Forces. In other words, the military justice pendulum had swung too far in one direction. It was time to bring it back towards equilibrium.

The various reports about the military justice system within the past five years, and the efforts of many within the Canadian Forces to strengthen the military justice system have, the Chairperson believes, greatly improved the system. However, in some areas, the pendulum appears to have swung too far. It is now time to look particularly at the issue of police discretion. Civilian police have, since their inception, relied on discretion as an indispensable tool in their work. The Military Police, understandably, have been reluctant to exercise discretion in some areas - notably charging practices - because of past history. The exercise of discretion with a civilian justice system may not be wholly transferable to a military justice setting, given the sometimes differing objectives of military and civilian justice systems. The Military Police now have several years experience under the "new" system of military justice. A rigid "zero-tolerance" approach may have had some merit in the early days of this new system, however that approach now warrants close re-examination. Otherwise, there will be more results like those in the present complaints before the Commission, where both the complainants and their colleagues who were drawn into the investigations have suffered unwarranted trouble. As Lieutenant-General Kinsman stated in a May 3, 2000, memorandum to the Chief of the Defence Staff:

Now, as a result of what I would conclude is largely an administrative oversight, we have one general officer who has been investigated for counseling fraud, one officer who has been charged and had his credentials removed and a third officer who has been investigated, found blameless of any impropriety but has had his credentials removed anyway . . . [T]he potential impact on the lives of the three people in this instance strikes me as being out of proportion to the factual evidence.

Not only the lives of those three under investigation, but many of those on the periphery - those who reported their concerns to the Military Police, Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigators and those who became witnesses - have suffered unnecessarily.

It is important to remember that members of the Military Police possess powerful tools of investigation. Using these investigative tools may have a dramatic impact on the lives of those involved whether they are the subjects of the investigation or they merely provide evidence to further the investigation. Such powers of investigation must always be used wisely."


Last updated:  2003-12-21 Return to top of the pageImportant Notices