Table of Contents

10. Commission Members' Conclusion

X. COMMISSION MEMBERS' CONCLUSION:

We recognize the turmoil these complaints, and the subsequent investigations, has had on the subject members, the complainants and their families.

The December 12, 2000 incident that led to three (3) investigations, first by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, then by Professional Standards and finally the Complaints Commission, strikes at core issues in military policing, such as the proper role and conduct of the Military Police when conducting arrests. Other serious allegations were investigated relating to abuse of authority by superiors and attempts to influence or punish complainants for having exercised their right to make a complaint.

We are of the view that the Complaints Commission has an important educational role to play in the policing arena. Equally important is the Complaints Commission's role in ensuring that complainants feel free to advance their complaints in an atmosphere free from reprisals. No one should be denied the right to complain and have his or her complaint investigated in a thorough, accurate and unbiased manner.

Our findings and recommendations are a result of careful consideration and weighing of the complainants' allegations, including due process and fairness to the subject members as well as consideration of the comments from the Provost Marshal in her Notice of Action. The Final Report is intended to assist in making positive changes. In order to effect any form of positive change, it requires willingness and cooperation between the two organizations, namely, the Military Police headed by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

While we certainly welcome comments from the Provost Marshal to our interim reports as a necessary and important step in the complaints process, we are also of the view that an appropriate balance needs to be reached. The Interim Report is just that, an interim step in the Part IV complaints process. Certainly, the Provost Marshal has made important comments and after further research and analysis we have been persuaded to make changes to our findings and recommendations in certain areas. This was the intended purpose, as we see it, of the Notice of Action. We cannot overlook the fact, however, that we are disappointed by some of the language used by the Provost Marshal in her Notice of Action and her decision to attack the credibility, objectivity, the expertise and the jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission. We are of the view that such an approach is unfortunate and unnecessary, especially when it only serves to confuse the process for the people who matter the most in the Part IV complaints process; namely, the complainants, the subjects of the complaints and the Canadian public at large who expect and rely on an effective complaints process.

Ottawa, July XXXX, 2004

________________________		________________________
Peter Seheult		Odilon Emond
Member		Member