TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Monitoring Role of the Commission
• Bridging the Language Barrier
• When the Chairperson and the Canadian Forces Provost Agree to Disagree
• The Duty to Act Expeditiously
• Complaints of Interference
• Five-Year Review of the National Defence Act
• Strategic plan of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
• Education and Outreach Program
• Special Reports
• Corporate Support
• Acknowledgments

Message from the Chairperson

INTRODUCTION

In this, our third full year of operation, I am confident in saying the Commission is maturing as an organization, with a strong focus on outcomes. Civilian oversight of law enforcement involves more than investigating complaints and Filing reports, and we do not measure our success solely on the number of complaints we have processed in a given year, but also on whether we have succeeded in making the Commission an agent for positive change.

Beyond publishing my findings in a particular case, as Chairperson I am empowered to make recommendations based on those Findings. The purpose of making recommendations is as simple as it is fundamental – with their implementation, it is hoped the situation that gave rise to the complaint in the first instance will not be repeated. Our recommendations in two cases for example, summarized in this Report, led to specific changes in Military Police policy and procedures for surveillance operations and for dealing with civil matters.

These recommendations reflect our understanding that, although we can look back on 2002 with a sense of accomplishment, many challenges remain as we pursue our mission and vision to promote the principles of integrity and fairness within the Military Police; to ensure the highest standards of professional conduct among its members, and to discourage any interference with Military Police investigations.

This is the role the Government of Canada intended the Commission to play when it was created on December 1, 1999, and I believe we have made significant accomplishments in this area in 2002.

It is inevitable that there will arise instances of disagreement between the Commission and those vested with the management of the Military Police under Part IV of the National Defence Act. This is a normal part of the relationship between any civilian oversight body and the law enforcement agency it oversees, as each develops its understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the other.

In the case of the Military Police Complaints Commission, reaching across this “cultural divide” can be especially challenging, in that we are bringing civilian oversight not only to a law enforcement agency, but to a law enforcement agency that operates within the centuries-old traditions and values of the military.

As the relationship between the Commission and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal develops and evolves in the years ahead, it will remain incumbent on both to ensure we work together in an atmosphere of trust and understanding toward our shared goal: enhancing the credibility and professionalism of a Military Police service of which all Canadians can be proud.

MONITORING ROLE OF THE COMMISSION

Beyond this basic power of review, the Act also gives the Commission, in both letter and in spirit, broad powers to oversee and monitor complaint investigations undertaken by the Provost Marshal. Indeed, the Act gives the Commission and its Chairperson, regardless of the outcome of the complaint, a right to oversee the entire procedure for conduct complaints.

Section 250.38 in particular, giving the Chairperson the power to assume the investigation of a complaint being dealt with by the Provost Marshal at any time during the process, makes it clear the Commission is both intended and expected to monitor the Provost Marshal’s handling of conduct complaints from the time a complaint is filed.

BRIDGING THE LANGUAGE BARRIER

This type of language barrier can present special difficulties for civilians who come in contact with the military. Beyond a forest of acronyms, other terms have come to be defined somewhat differently in military usage. As an example, one term to which the Commission has paid special attention this past year is “duty to assist.”

In the Canadian Forces, “duty to assist” is understood in the context of a military duty, and the circumstances in which a member of the Military Police has a duty to assist are clearly defined. The Commission, on the other hand, sees “duty to assist” in civilian terms; that is, as the much broader moral and legal obligation members of any police service have to assist a citizen in difficulty. To enhance their credibility with the Canadian public, I believe Military Police members should undertake their duty to assist on civilian terms.

As examples, witnesses in some investigations can be subject to significant stress. Military police need to be aware of this, and recognize they have a duty to assist. A duty to assist also exists in helping a civilian complainant understand military language and procedures, in order for their complaint to be investigated fully and fairly. This concept extends as well to instances in which a complainant may bring matters to the attention of the Provost Marshal that fall outside the Provost Marshal’s mandate to investigate; there nonetheless exists an obligation to assist the complainant by directing them to the appropriate agency or service.

I stress that bridging the language barrier is not solely the responsibility of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Indeed, it was agreed in discussions with the former Provost Marshal at the beginning of the Commission’s tenure that both organizations would attempt to learn and incorporate the parlance of the other, and I hope to continue this trend with the current Provost Marshal.

WHEN THE CHAIRPERSON AND THE CANADIAN FORCES PROVOST MARSHAL AGREE TO DISAGREE

In this Report, you will find examples instances where recommendations made the Commission were not implemented. forward to an ongoing dialogue with Provost Marshal as we work toward these outstanding issues in a manner satisfactory to both the Provost Marshal the Commission.

This dialogue notwithstanding, the legislation does envision instances where the Chairperson and the Provost Marshal will not be resolve specific concerns. The Chairperson choose to bring particular areas of concern the attention of the Minister of National Defence by including recommendations Commission’s Annual Report, as noted section 250.17(1) of the National Defence

THE DUTY TO ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY

I also look forward to continuing to work with the Provost Marshal to determine how the process can move more quickly, without damaging its integrity. After completing a review of a conduct complaint, for example, the Chairperson prepares an interim report of the findings and any recommendations stemming from the review of the complaint. The interim report is submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal.

In most instances, the interim report is reviewed by the Provost Marshal, who advises the Chairperson of any action that has, will or will not be taken with respect to the findings and recommendations in the interim report. After considering this “Notice of Action” from the Provost Marshal, the Chairperson issues a final report. I believe both our organizations must make a renewed effort to ensure the lapse of time between the filing of a complaint and the submission of a final report does not become inordinately or unnecessarily long.

COMPLAINTS OF INTERFERENCE

The Government of Canada recognized this in amending the National Defence Act in 1998. Under section 250.19 of the Act, Military Police members may submit complaints to the Commission when they believe a member of the Canadian Forces or a senior official of the Department of National Defence has interfered or attempted to interfere with their investigations.

As noted earlier in this Report, Part IV of the Act gives the Military Police Complaints Commission exclusive jurisdiction over this type of complaint; however, in comparison to the number of conduct complaints, the Commission receives very few complaints of interference each year.

I have observed that members of the Military Police and the Canadian Forces are not fully aware of this avenue of recourse and the principles behind it. Further, I continue to be concerned about potential reluctance on the part of members of the Military Police to File this type of complaint.

In December of 2002, the Commission released a Special Report, Interference with Military Police Ivestigations: What is it about? dealing with interference complaints in the hope of raising awareness of the concept of interference and the issues surrounding it. As a further step, I intend to propose amendments to the National Defence Act during the next legislative review that would offer protection for members of the Military Police who may File complaints of interference.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT

STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE CANADIAN FORCES PROVOST MARSHAL

The Military Police Complaints Commission applauds this effort on the part of the Provost Marshal, and the commitment to excellence and professionalism within the Canadian Forces Military Police it represents.

As Chairperson of the Commission, I offer my unqualified support to the goals and vision outlined in the Strategic Plan, and look forward to working with the Provost Marshal as the Canadian Forces Military Police pursue these goals, and strive to realize their vision.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM

During 2002, representatives of the Commission visited Military Police detachments in Borden, Gander, Goose Bay, Cold Lake and Trenton. Presentations were given about the Commission, and meetings were held with members of the Canadian Forces and the Military Police. As in past visits of this kind, we were again impressed by the warm and accommodating welcome given to the Commission, and by the frank and open quality of the discussions with members of the Canadian Forces. I believe personal contacts of this nature are invaluable in bringing the Commission closer to its primary clients, and these visits will continue in the years ahead.

As part of our own education, members of the Commission are actively involved in national and international bodies concerned with civilian oversight of law enforcement, including the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE), and the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE). In September of this year, the late Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan, S.C., made a very well-received presentation to the CACOLE annual conference in St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Also worthy of note in this area is the Commission’s Web site, which became operational in April 2002 at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca. The Web site brings accessibility to information about the Commission, its activities and the complaint process to a new level, and I am confident its usefulness as a tool for outreach will continue to grow in the years ahead.

SPECIAL REPORTS

CORPORATE SUPPORT

In keeping with overall Government of Canada policy initiatives, the principles of modern comptrollership have been introduced, including delegation of authority, integrated financial reporting aligned with operational activities and accrual accounting. We have completed a capacity assessment of the Commission, and in the coming year, will be developing action plans to enhance our management capabilities in this area.

As a small agency, the Military Police Complaints Commission is especially sensitive to the importance of organizational stability. Now that recruitment is no longer a primary focus of our human resources activities, the Commission is able to devote more attention to employee well-being and organizational learning. Staff of the Commission completed the Public Service-wide employee survey in 2002, with a participation rate of almost 80 per cent.

As Chairperson, I am eager to provide a workplace that is both challenging and rewarding, and to develop and maintain positive, productive relationships with Commission employees and the unions that represent them. This past year, for example, saw the establishment of the Commission’s Union-Management Consultative Committee. In order to use its financial and human resources as effectively as possible, the Commission has been actively seeking out partnerships with other Government of Canada departments and agencies. As a result of these initiatives, the Commission now receives integrated human resources services through the Shared Human Resources Services offered by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

Through its partnership with the Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services at PWGSC, the Commission is working to ensure its information management and information technology practices comply with Government of Canada policies and standards, particularly in relation to the Government On-Line initiative. In this area, the Military Police Complaints Commission is among the first Government of Canada departments and agencies to implement the use of “Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)” to address security concerns associated with electronic communication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We were pleased to welcome three new members to the Commission this year. The Government of Canada announced appointment of Mr. Peter Seheult as parttime member of the Commission in A graduate of the University of New law school, Mr. Seheult is a past Chairman of the New Brunswick Police Commission.

Two part-time members were appointed to the Commission in December: Mr. Emond, of Lac Mégantic, Quebec, and Mr. Henry Kostuck of Orleans, Ontario. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Kostuck come the Commission after enjoying long successful careers in police services.

Sadly, the year was also marked by the of Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan, S.C., who passed away suddenly in November Mr. Flanagan was an invaluable member the Commission from its inception in His support, expertise and comradeship deeply missed.

Louise Cobetto
Chairperson
Military Police Complaints Commission