3000-2012-eng[1]

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

1/44

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

2/44

For an electronic version o the publication, please consult the Commissions

website at mpcc-cppm.gc.ca

Her Majesty the Queen in Right o Canada, represented by the Military Police

Complaints Commission, 2013.

Catalogue No. DP1-2012

ISSN 1700-6627

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

3/44

Letter o Transmissionto the MinisterMarch 31, 2013

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, P.C., M.P.

Minister o National Deence

National Deence Headquarters

MGen George R. Pearkes Building

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

Dear Minister:

In accordance with section 250.17(1) o the National Deence Act, it is my duty and privilege to submit or tabling in

Parliament the Military Police Complaints Commissions (the Commission) Annual Report or 2012.

In this Annual Report, you will nd a detailed discussion o all signicant aspects o the Commissions activities

during 2012, including summaries o some o its reviews and investigations o complaints.

All o which is respectully submitted.

Yours truly,

Glenn M. Stannard, O.O.M.

Chairperson

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

4/44

Table oContents

CHAIRPERSONS MESSAGE 4

Part I OVERVIEW 6

i) Military Police Complaints Commission 7

ii) Mandate and Mission 7

iii) Organizational Background 8

iv) The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Deputy Commander,Canadian Forces Military Police Group/Proessional Standards 9

v) The Military Police 9

vi) Conduct Complaints Process 10

vii) Intererence Complaints Process 12

viii) Public Interest Investigations and Hearings 12

Part II THE YEAR IN REVIEW 14

i) Highlights and Accomplishments 15ii) Monitoring and Investigations 16

iii) Aghanistan Public Interest Hearing 17

iv) Fynes Public Interest Hearing 19

v) Impact on Military Policing Case Summaries 19

vi) Legislative Renewal 24

a) Second Independent Review o the National Deence Act (C-25) 24

b) Bill C-15: Strengthening Military Justice in the Deence o Canada Act 25

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

5/44

Part III STEWARDSHIP EXCELLENCE 26

i) Integrated Planning 27ii) Integrated Financial Management 27

iii) Integrated Human Resource Management 27

iv) Integrated Risk Management 29

v) Integrated Security, Health and Saety, and Business Continuity 29

vi) Integrated Inormation Technology 30

vii) Integrated Inormation Management 30

viii) Greening Initiatives 31

ix) Five-Year Budget and Expenditure Comparison 31

x) Management Reviews 32

xi) Horizontal Audits 32

xii) Outreach and Collaboration 33

xiii) Media/Public Relations 35

Part IV CONCLUSION 36

PART V APPENDIX 38

Biography o the Chairperson 39

Biographies o Commission Members 39

Organization Chart 41

How to Reach the Commission 42

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

6/44

I am pleased to present the 2012 Annual Report or the

Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission)

which has as its theme Advancing Oversight.

This theme is particularly relevant given the Commissions

continued positive momentum this year advancing its

oversight mandate in the context o an unprecedented

operational workload o Public Interest Hearings (PIH),

complex and voluminous conduct and intererence

complaints, and other matters, such as legislative

renewal. The Commission also advanced a range ocorporate initiatives to support the organizations

needs and to meet its increased reporting obligations

to government and central agency accountability regimes.

These corporate demands are extraordinarily resource

and time-intensive undertakings, particularly or a

micro-agency such as the Commission.

On June 27, 2012, the Commission released its Final

Report concerning the highly complex Aghanistan PIH,

related to a complaint by Amnesty International Canada

and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association thatcertain Military Police (MP) wrongly ailed to investigate

Canadian Forces Commanders or allegedly ordering

the transer o Aghan detainees to a known risk o

torture at the hands o Aghan security orces. This

was a challenging and dicult proceeding which

spanned our years and involved 40 witnesses, 47 days

o hearings and thousands o pages o documentation;

the Final Report itsel is more than 500 pages. While the

Commission ound the complaints against the eight

individual MP subjects unsubstantiated, it made crucial

recommendations to address serious procedural

problems, to improve the work o policing when MP are

deployed on missions and to remove major obstacles

experienced by the Commission related to document

disclosure and witness access during PIHs. Commission

Member Roy Berlinquette, my Co-Panel member or

this Hearing, provided invaluable advice and support

throughout this entire process.

On March 27, 2012, another PIH was commenced,

this time to examine the MP investigations relating to

the death o Corporal (Cpl) Stuart Langridge ollowing

a complaint led by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Fynes.

Cpl Langridge committed suicide on March 15, 2008, at

Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit, Edmonton.

The allegations included that: the Canadian ForcesNational Investigation Services (CFNIS) did not conduct

independent investigations into the matter; the investi-

gations were inadequate and biased; and the CFNIS

ailed to disclose the existence o a suicide note to the

ChairpersonsMessage

Glen

nM

.Sta

nnard,

O.O.M

.

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

7/44

parents. To date, this process has involved 90 witnesses,

more than 12,500 pages o transcripts, and 61 hearing

days. I have set January 9, 2013, as the date or the

presentation o oral closing submissions by the Parties.

On June 8, 2012, the Report o the Second Independent

Review o the National Deence Act (C-25), chaired by

the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, was released. The

Commission had put considerable time and eort into

its June 2011 submissions to the Independent Review

Authority (the ull text o these submissions is availableon the Commissions website). While gratied to note

the LeSage Report adopted some o our proposals,

the Commission was surprised and disappointed

a number o its most vital proposals or legislative

improvement were either misconstrued or simply not

addressed. The Commission remains rmly convinced

it requires stronger legislative authorities o access to

relevant inormation and evidence in order to ully and

credibly investigate complaints, and thereby discharge

its mandate as Parliament envisioned and as the

public rightly expects. As such, we will continue topursue our key proposals or legislative change.

Bill C-15, Strengthening Military Justice in the Deence

o Canada Act was tabled in the House o Commons

on October 7, 2011, and received second reading and

reerral to Committee on December 12, 2012. The

Commission expressed concerns regarding a specic

provision o the Bill which proposed to authorize the

Vice Chie o Deence Sta to direct the Canadian

Forces Provost Marshal in respect o the conduct o

individual MP investigations.

Again this year, I must pay tribute to the tremendous

contributions o all Commission sta members.

They are the epitome o Commission values such as

integrity, dedication and proessionalism, and they have

consistently demonstrated a spirit o mutual respect,

cooperation and collaboration. Throughout the year,

we have continued to recognize their valuable contri-

butions and I am justly proud o everyones eorts to

maintain a positive working environment, even in the

ace o unparalleled workload.

The knowledge and expert contributions o Commission

Members Roy Berlinquette, Steven Chabot and Hugh Muir

have assisted the Commission to meet its important

oversight mandate, as has their worthwhile participa-

tion in our Outreach Program which included visits

with MP members at seven Canadian Forces bases

and Military Family Resource Centres across Canada.

In closing, I remain committed to advancing the impor-

tant work o the Commission to provide civilian oversight

o Canadas MP in a manner that continues to be

eective, ecient, and air to all concerned.

Glenn M. Stannard, O.O.M.

Chairperson

Military Police coMPlaints coMMission annual rePort 2012

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

8/44

To promote and ensure the highest standards o

conduct o military police in the perormance o

policing duties and to discourage intererence in

any military police investigation.

Mission Statmnt of th Commission

Overview

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

9/44

The Military Police Complaints Commission (the

Commission) was established by the Government o

Canada to provide independent civilian oversight o the

Canadian Forces Military Police, eective December 1,

1999. This was achieved through an amendment to the

National Deence Act (NDA), creating a new Part IV

which sets out the mandate o the Commission and

how complaints are to be handled. As stated in Issue

Paper No. 8, which accompanied the Bill that created the

Commission, its role is to provide or greater public

accountability by the military police and the chain o

command in relation to military police investigations.

Mandate: The Commission reviews and investigates

complaints concerning Military Police (MP) conduct

and investigates allegations o intererence in MP

investigations. It reports its ndings and makes recom-

mendations directly to the MP and National Deence

leadership.

Mission: To promote and ensure the highest stan-

dards o conduct o MP in the perormance o policing

duties and to discourage intererence in any MPinvestigation.

The Commission ullls its mandate and mission by

exercising the ollowing responsibilities:

MonitoringinvestigationsbytheCanadianForces

Provost Marshal (CFPM) o MP conduct complaints;

Reviewingthedispositionofthosecomplaintsat

the request o the complainant;

Investigatingcomplaintsofinterference;and,

Conductingpublicinterestinvestigationsandhearings.

PART

1

i) Military Police coMPlaints coMMission

ii) Mandate and Mission


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

10/44

The Commission is one o 14 organizations in the Deence

Portolio. While it reports to Parliament through the

Minister o National Deence (MND), the Commission

is both administratively and legally independent rom

the Department o National Deence (DND) and the

Canadian Forces (CF). The Commission is not subject

to direction rom the MND in respect o its operational

mandate.

The Commission is an independent Federal government

institution as dened under Schedule I.1 o the Financial

Administration Act (FAA). As an independent oversight

agency, the Commission must operate at a distance

and with a degree o autonomy rom government,

including the DND and the CF. All members o the

Commission are civilians and are independent o the

DND and the CF in ullling their responsibilities and

accountabilities in accordance with governing legislation,

regulations and policies.

Tribunal decisions and Commission operations and

administration must also be, and be seen to be, ree

rom ministerial infuence, other than seeking the

signature o the MND, as the Minister responsible to

table the Commissions Reports on Plans and Priorities;

Departmental Perormance Reports; Annual Reports

to Parliament; and other accountability documents

such as Memoranda to Cabinet and Treasury Board

Submissions.

Designated as Chie Executive Ocer (CEO) o the

Commission, the Chairperson is accountable or all

Commission activities and or the achievement o results.

Based on the Terms and Conditions o Employment or

Full-Time Governor in Council (GIC) Appointees, the

Chairperson has been designated as CEO, statutory

deputy head or Deputy Head as dened by the FAA

and as designated through the GIC.

As Deputy Head, the Chairperson is accountable to

Parliament or ullling management responsibilities,

including nancial management. This includes accoun-

tability or: allocating resources to deliver Commission

programs and services in compliance with governing

legislation, regulations and policies; exercising authority

delegated by the Public Service Commission or human

resources; maintaining eective systems o internal

controls; signing accounts in a manner that accurately

refects the nancial position o the Commission; and

exercising any and all other duties prescribed by

legislation, regulations or policies relating to the

administration o the Commission.

iii) organizational Background


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

11/44

On April 1, 2011, the CFPM assumed ull command o

all MP members who are directly involved in policing.

The CFPM also assigns MP elements to other supported

commanders under operational command.

The Deputy Commander, Canadian Forces Military

Police Group manages public complaints and internal

MP misconduct investigations and ensures adherence

to the Military Police Proessional Code o Conduct.

The CFPM is responsible or dealing with complaints

about MP conduct in the rst instance. The Commission

has the authority to monitor the steps taken by the

CFPM as it responds to complaints, and to conduct its

own reviews and investigations, as required. The

Commission has the exclusive authority to deal with

intererence complaints.

Commission recommendations or improvements,

contained in its Interim and Final Reports, are not

binding on the CF and the DND. However, they do

provide the opportunity to urther enhance transpar-

ency and accountability.

Detailed inormation on the conduct and intererence

complaints processes is contained in later sections o

this report.

The Canadian Forces Military Police Branch was ormed

in 1968 with the unication o the CF. MP members

were allocated to the Army, Navy and Air Force. The

stated Mission o the CF MP is to contribute to the

eectiveness and readiness o the CF and the DND

through the provision o proessional police, security

and operational support services worldwide.

The MP Branch is comprised o 2,000 plus personnel:

650 reservists and 1,400 sworn, credentialed members(ocers and non-commissioned members), i.e. those

members who are entitled to be in possession o an MP

badge and identication card and thus peace ocers

by virtue o the Queens Regulations and Orders or the

Canadian Forces article 22.02, NDA s.156 and Criminal

Code s. 2.

The MP exercise jurisdiction within the CF over both

the DND employees and civilians on the DND property.

The MP orm an integral part o the military justice

system in much the same way as civilian police act

within the civilian criminal justice system. MP routinely

train and work with their civilian counterparts in the

provision o police and security services to the CF and

the DND.

Members o the MP are granted certain powers underthe NDA in order to ulll their policing duties. For

example, MP have the power to arrest, detain and

search. The Criminal Code recognizes members o the

MP as peace ocers. They can make arrests and lay

charges or oences pursuant to the NDA and the

Criminal Code, and lay charges in civilian criminal courts.

iv) the canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the

dePuty coMMander, canadian Forces Military PolicegrouP/ProFessional standards

v) the Military Police


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

12/44

Conduct Complaint Filed

Anyone may make a conduct complaint regarding

the MP in the perormance o their policing duties or

unctions, including those individuals not directly

aected by the subject matter o the complaint. Such

complaints are initially dealt with by the CFPM.

Inormal resolution is encouraged.

Complaint Investigated by the CFPM

As the CFPM investigates a complaint, the Commission

monitors the process. At the conclusion o the investi-

gation the CFPM provides a copy o its nal disposition

o the complaint to the Commission. The Commission

may, at any time during the CFPM investigation, assume

responsibility or the investigation or call a public

hearing i it is deemed to be in the public interest.

Request or Review

Complainants may request the Commission review the

complaint i they are not satised with the results o

the CFPMs investigation or disposition o the complaint.

Commission Reviews Complaint

At a minimum, this process involves a review o docu-

mentation related to the CFPMs investigation. Most

oten, it also includes interviews with the complainant;

the subject o the complaint; and witnesses, as well as

reviews o relevant legislation, and military and civilian

police policies and procedures.

Commission Releases Interim Report

At the completion o the review, the Chairperson sends

the Interim Report to the MND, the Chie o Deence

Sta (CDS) and the CFPM setting out the ndings and

recommendations regarding the complaint.

Notice o Action

The Notice o Action is the ocial response by the CF to

the Interim Report and it outlines what action, i any, has

been or will be taken in response to the Commissions

recommendations.

Commission Releases Final Report

Ater considering the Notice o Action, the Commission

issues a Final Report o ndings and recommendations.

The Final Report is provided to the MND, the Deputy

Minister (DM), the CDS, the Judge Advocate General

(JAG), the CFPM, the complainant and the subject(s) o

the complaint, as well as anyone who has satised the

Commission that they have a substantial and direct

interest in the case.

vi) conduct coMPlaints Process


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

13/44

How the Commission carries out its

reviews and investigations o conduct

complaints

In response to a request rom a complainant or a

review, the Commission ollows the steps described

below:

Commissionlegalcounselconductsapreliminary

review o the request or review and then bries the

Chairperson, who determines how to respond to the

request, whether an investigation is required, the

scope o the investigation warranted and how to

approach the investigation. He may also delegate a

Commission Member to handle the le. Aleadinvestigatorisassignedand,withCommission

legal counsel, reviews the evidence and other mate-

rials gathered during the CFPMs investigation o

the complaint this could be hundreds o pages o

documents, emails, handwritten notes and reports,

and many hours o audio and video interviews with

witnesses.

TheleadinvestigatorpreparesanInvestigationPlan,

setting out the goals, timelines and budget or

the investigation, as well as the lines o inquiryto be pursued, all o which must be approved by

the Chairperson or a delegated Member o the

Commission.

Theleadinvestigatorandanassistinginvestigator,

in consultation with Commission legal counsel

and the Chairperson or the delegated Commission

Member, then review any relevant legislation,

policies and regulations, arrange and conduct

interviews with witnesses, and request additional

documentary materials as necessary.

Followingthecompletionofwitnessinterviews,the

investigators submit a comprehensive report on

the inormation gathered during the investigation

to the assigned legal counsel or review. The report is

then submitted to the Chairperson or the delegated

Commission Member.

Subjecttoanynecessaryfurtherinquiries,the

Chairperson or the delegated Commission Memberreviews the results o the investigation and deter-

mines his ndings and recommendations about

the complaint. On the basis o these ndings and

recommendations, the Chairperson or the delegated

Commission Member prepares the Commissions

Interim Report. The Interim Report goes to the

MND, the CDS and the CFPM.

Followingreceiptandconsiderationoftheofcial

response to the Commissions Interim Report,

which is ordinarily provided by the CFPM in a Noticeo Action, the Commission then prepares and issues

its Final Report, which goes to the relevant depart-

mental ocials, and also to the complainant and

the subject member(s) o the MP.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

14/44

Intererence Complaint Filed

Any member(s) o the MP who conduct or supervise

investigations and believe a member o the CF or a

senior ocial o the DND has interered with, or

attempted to infuence, a MP investigation may le

a complaint with the Commission.

Commission Investigates

The Commission has sole jurisdiction to investigate

intererence complaints. A preliminary review is

conducted to determine whether an investigation

should be commenced, the scope o the investigation

and how to approach the investigation. Once this is

completed, the Commission commences an investigation.

Commission Releases Interim Report

The Interim Report includes a summary o the

Commissions investigation, as well as its ndings and

recommendations. This report goes to the MND; the

CDS i the alleged intererence was carried out by amember o the military or to the DM i the subject o

the complaint is a senior ocial o the DND; the JAG;

and the CFPM.

Notice o Action

This ocial response to the Interim Report indicates

the actions, i any, which have been or will be taken to

implement the Commissions recommendations.

Commission Releases Final Report

Taking into account the response in the Notice o

Action, the Commission prepares a Final Report o its

ndings and recommendations in the case. The Final

Report is provided to the MND; the DM; the CDS; the

JAG; the CFPM; the complainant and the subject(s) o

the complaint, as well as anyone who has satised the

Commission that they have a substantial and direct

interest in the case.

At any time when it is in the public interest, the

Chairperson may initiate an investigation into a

complaint about police conduct or intererence in a

police investigation. I warranted, the Chairperson

may decide to hold a public hearing. In exercising thisstatutory discretion, the Chairperson considers a

number o actors including, among others:

Doesthecomplaintinvolveallegationsofserious

misconduct?

Dotheissueshavethepotentialtoaffect

condence in MP or the complaints process?

Doesthecomplaintinvolveorraisequestionsabout

the integrity o senior military or the DND ocials,

including senior MP?Aretheissuesinvolvedlikelytohaveasignicant

impact on MP practices and procedures?

Aretheissuesofbroaderpublicconcern

or importance?

vii) interFerence coMPlaints Process

viii) PuBlic interest investigations and hearings


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

15/44

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

16/44

The Advancing Oversight theme is particularly

relevant given the Commissions continued positive

momentum this year advancing its oversight mandate

in the context o an unprecedented operational

workload o Public Interest Hearings, complex and

voluminous conduct and intererence complaints,

and other matters, such as legislative renewal.

Gnn M. Stannard, Commission Chairprson

TheYear inReview

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

17/44

PART

2

The ollowing inormation provides an overview o the

highlights and accomplishments this year.

OnJune27,2012,theCommissionissueditsFinal

Report on the Aghanistan Public Interest Hearing

(PIH) examining the ailure to investigate complaint

by Amnesty International Canada (AIC) and the

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)

that certain Military Police (MP) wrongly ailed to

investigate Canadian Forces (CF) Commanders or

allegedly ordering the transer o Aghan detainees

to a known risk o torture at the hands o Aghan

security orces. The Final Report ound the com-

plaints against the MP subjects unsubstantiated.

However, it made crucial recommendations to

address a range o serious procedural and other

problems, and to improve the work o policing

when MPs are deployed on missions. It also made

recommendations to remove major obstacles

experienced by the Commission related to docu-

ment disclosure and witness access during PIH.

OnMarch27,2012,anotherPIHwascommencedto examine the MP investigation relating to the

death o Corporal (Cpl) Stuart Langridge ollowing a

complaint led by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Fynes.

Cpl Langridge committed suicide on March 15, 2008,

at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit (CFB/ASU),

Edmonton. To date, 90 witnesses have been heard,

over a period o 61 days, representing more than

12,500 pages o transcripts. The Chairperson has set

a date o January 9, 2013, or the presentation o

closing submissions rom the Parties.

TheReportoftheSecondIndependentReviewofthe National Deence Act (NDA), conducted by the

Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, was released on

June 8, 2012. The Commission had previously sub-

mitted comprehensive proposals to the Honourable

Patrick J. LeSage. The Report made recommenda-

tions on a number o these proposals, although

major areas o the Commissions concerns were

not addressed, particularly those aimed at improving

its capacity to address complaints eciently and

credibly.

BillC-15,Strengthening Military Justice in the

Deence o Canada Act was tabled in the House o

Commons on October 7, 2011, proposing a number

o amendments to the NDA primarily related to the

military justice system or the CF. The Bill received

second reading and was reerred to Committee on

December 12, 2012. One provision o the Bill relatesto the proposed authority o the Vice Chie o the

Deence Sta (VCDS) to direct MP investigations.

In its brie to the House o Commons Standing

Committee on National Deence, the Commission

expressed serious concerns regarding the potential

impact o this provision on preserving the indepen-

dence o MP investigations rom intererence by the

chain o command.

TheCommissionhandledanunprecedented,heavy

workload in 2012 including a new PIH, combined with

a number o unusually resource-intensive complaintinvestigation les and other projects which severely

challenged human and nancial resources. To assist

in addressing this PIH, the Commission sought and

obtained approval or additional, multi-year unding

rom Treasury Board.

CommissionrepresentativesvisitedsevenCF

bases across Canada to engage with key audiences

about the Commissions mandate and activities and

to respond to any questions or concerns about the

complaints process. Also, the Commission madepresentations to groups o MP members in training

sessions at the Canadian Forces Military Police

Academy and at the MP Symposium. All presentations

were very well-received.

During2012,86%oftheCommissionsrecom-

mendations in its Final Reports were accepted by

the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM).

i) highlights and accoMPlishMents


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

18/44

Overview

The ollowing table highlights the Commissions

statistics on a our-year comparative basis rom 2009

to 2012. The table cannot ully refect the increased

complexity and scope o the complaints and other

voluminous les handled by the Commission, nor the

diculty predicting when such matters will be reerred

or investigative review. More and more, these matters

involve thousands o pages o evidence and scheduling

and interviewing multiple witnesses, in Canada and

abroad. As a result, this extends the duration o investi-

gations and the length o time required to consult

on and write Interim and Final Reports. This in turn

contributes signicantly to increased costs.

ii) Monitoring and investigations

2009 2010 2011 2012

Condct Compaints Carrid Ovr 14 13 22 28

Nw Condct Compaints * 43 43 45 51

Intrfrnc Compaints Carrid Ovr 0 1 0 3

Nw Intrfrnc Compaints 1 1 8 2

Rviws Carrid Ovr 11 5 5 10

Nw Rviws 6 6 9 8

s.250.38 Pbic Intrst Invstigations/Harings Carrid Ovr 5 1 1 2

Nw s.250.38 Pbic Intrst Invstigations/Harings 0 0 1 0

Jdicia Procdings Carrid Ovr (.g. Jdicia Rviw) ** 1 1 1 0

Nw Jdicia Procdings (.g. Jdicia Rviw) 3 4 0 0

No. of Gnra Fis Opn (Rqst for information and othr) 36 45 45 59

New Files Opened 89 99 108 120

Total No. o Files Dealt in the Year 120 120 137 163

No. of Dcisions/Rings Issd 8 8 5 8

No. of Intrim Rports 8 5 10 7

No. of Fina Rports *** 17 12 9 14

No. of Rcommndations on Fina Rports 23 4 11 14

Prcntag of Rcommndations Accptd 100% 100% 100% 86% ****No. o Reports/Decisions/Rulings Issued 33 25 24 29

* Incds no jrisdiction compaints.

** Jdicia Rviw is th procss ndr which th gaity of actions of tribnas can b rviwd by th Fdra Cort.

*** Incds Concding Rports and no jrisdiction ttrs.

**** This rprsnts two rcommndations which wr not accptd.

No jrisdiction mans that condct or intrfrnc compaints xamind by th Commission incd mnts ovr which th Commission has no ga jrisdiction,

.g. whr th sbjct of a compaint is not a mmbr of th Miitary Poic or th compaint agation dos not constitt a poicing dty or fnction as pr th Rgations.

STATISTICS FROM 20092012


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

19/44

On June 27, 2012, the Commission issued its Final

Report in response to a complaint by AIC and the

BCCLA in June 2008, that certain MP ocers wrongly

ailed to investigate CF Commanders or allegedly

ordering the transer o Aghan detainees to a known

risk o torture at the hands o Aghan security orces.

The Commissions investigation and hearing process

spanned nearly our years. During this time, it heard

testimony rom 40 witnesses, including the eight

subjects o the complaint, and held 47 days o public

hearings rom 2008 to 2011. The Commission also

reviewed thousands o documents throughout its

investigation.

The Commission ound the complaints against the

eight individual MP subjects were unsubstantiated.

However, it identied serious procedural and other

problems regarding reporting, accountability and

inormation sharing in the MP, and made crucial

recommendations to improve the work o policing

when MPs are deployed on missions. The Commission

also made two recommendations designed to remove

major obstacles experienced by the Commission

related to document disclosure and witness access

during PIHs.

While the Commission has dismissed the complaint

against eight individual senior Military Police ocers, we

have made a number o recommendations that we believe

will improve the quality o policing services delivered

by the Military Police, said Commission Chairperson

Glenn Stannard in releasing the 535 page report.

Despite the limitations imposed by its legal mandate,

this inquiry was the most exhaustive yet held into the

subject o detainee transers by the CF in Aghanistan,he said.

As noted in the report, the Commissions legal mandate

did not extend to making ndings and recommendations

concerning the Government o Canada and Canadian

Forces policy on detainee transers.

In the course o its investigation, the Commission

determined that MP were marginalized when it came

to discussions and inormation related to post-transer

issues. Inormation on detainee abuse, including

reports on site visits conducted by the Department o

Foreign Aairs and International Trade to Aghan

detention acilities, stayed within a small group o people

in Aghanistan that excluded the MP. Furthermore, the

Commission ound that MP input into post-transerdetainee issues or the status o the transer process

would have been perceived as unwelcome.

iii) aFghanistan PuBlic interest hearing

MP input into post-transer detainee issues or the status o the transer

process would have been perceived as unwelcome.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

20/44

Thus, the Commission concluded that, in the circum-

stances, none o the eight subjects o the complaint

could reasonably have been expected to investigate the

Task Force commanders while in theatre, or should

have caused such an investigation to occur, and that

their actions under the circumstances prevailing at the

time met the standards o a reasonable police ocer.

The Commission also ound signicant problems

existed relating to the continuity o knowledge, accoun-

tability and inormation sharing within the MP. The

Commission recommended the CFPM implement

measures and standards to ensure that MP deployed

during uture conficts are provided the necessary

baseline inormation so as to be ully educated on

potential policing issues stemming rom the previous

rotation. In its recommendation, the Commission

detailed what baseline inormation should be included.

In the April 3, 2012, Notice o Action responding to the

Commissions recommendations in the Interim Report,

the Chie o the Deence Sta (CDS) detailed eorts

already taken, such as a greater emphasis on training

to ensure MP deployed during uture conficts have the

necessary baseline inormation on policing issues, and

the signicant steps taken to ensure MP command

oversight o policing matters in theatre.

The Report also describes largely unnecessary and

avoidable major obstacles the Commission experienced

related to document production, witness access, parallel

court proceedings and claims o national security.

The Commission recommended the process sections

o its reports be reviewed in detail, with a view to

eliminating barriers to eciently and eectively

conducting uture public interest hearings and devel-

oping a cooperative approach to document production,witness access and national security issues.

Finally, the Commission recommended it be added to

the schedule o designated entities as prescribed by

section 38.01(8) o the Canada Evidence Act (CEA). This

would allow the Commission to more eectively and

eciently obtain inormation relevant to the discharge

o its statutory mandate o providing independent

oversight o military policing, while at the same time

maintaining strict control over such inormation, the

disclosure o which has the potential to negatively

aect Canadas national security interests or interna-

tional relations.

The CDS responded to this recommendation, as ollows:

It is within the mandate o the Commission to review,

and where warranted in the public interest, investigate

complaints regarding the conduct o members o the

military police. It is recognized that, in appropriate

circumstances, the CEA permits an investigative body

to be given access to sensitive or potentially injurious

inormation. This is best determined on a case-

by-case basis.

The Commission concluded by reiterating that this

case was one which merited the Commission being

placed on the schedule and expressed doubts that the

response to this recommendation will lead to a viable

resolution o the problems identied by the Commission.

Assessing the Commissions ability to receive sensitive

inormation on a case-by-case basis with regard to

each relevant complaint le is not only inecient, it

undermines the independence and credibility o the

Commissions process. No other standing statutory

body has been designated under the CEA schedule on

a case-specic basis.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

21/44

On March 27, 2012, the Commission launched a PIH

relating to three investigations conducted by the Canadian

Forces National Investigative Service (CFNIS) ollowing

the death o Cpl Stuart Langridge ater a complaint by

his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Fynes. Cpl Langridge committed

suicide at CFB/ASU Edmonton on March 15, 2008. He

had served in Bosnia and Aghanistan. His parents

maintain he was suering rom depression and post-

traumatic stress disorder at the time o his death.

Mr. and Mrs. Fynes led a complaint with the Commission

relating to investigations conducted by the CFNIS

ollowing the death o their son making allegations

including, among others:

TheCFNISdidnotconductindependentinvestigations

into the matter;

TheinvestigationsCFNISconductedwereinadequate

and biased;

TheinvestigationswereaimedatexoneratingCF

members o any responsibility or their ailure to

prevent Cpl Langridges death and or the manner

in which the Fynes were subsequently treated;

TheCFNISfailedtoinvestigateimportantissues;and,

TheCFNISfailedtodisclosetheexistenceofa

suicide note rom their son to the Fynes.

The PIH has involved an extremely complex and

heavy workload which, to date, has resulted in over

12,500 transcript pages, 61 hearing days and theappearance o 90 witnesses at the Hearing.

On November 1, 2012, the Chairperson, who is presiding

over the Hearing issued a decision on a request or an

adjournment rom the Department o Justice which

sets the date o January 9, 2013, as the date or the

presentation o closing submissions rom the Parties.

In this section o the Annual Report summaries are

provided as a sampling o some o the conduct and

intererence cases completed by the Commission

in 2012.

a) Conduct Complaint MP Response

to a Fighting Incident

This complaint arose rom a ghting incident outside a

junior-ranks mess in the early hours o the morning,

wherein the complainant was knocked unconscious

and suered injuries to his head and elsewhere when

he was attacked by one o the main instigators o the

violence, a Reserve Force MP. Base MP responded to

the incident and initially took some inormation rom

witnesses, including the complainant, but determined

ormal statements should be obtained later, as many

o those involved seemed intoxicated. One MP oered

the complainant help to obtain medical assistance

but he declined and went home.

The complainant awoke eeling unwell, experiencing

dizziness and a severe headache. He decided he neededmedical treatment, but the base medical centre was

closed and he did not know where the nearest civilian

hospital was. He drove to the MP detachment and

explained the situation to the commissionaire who

looked or directions to the hospital on an area map.

The commissionaire was concerned the complainant

would drive as he believed he might be intoxicated due

iv) Fynes PuBlic interest hearing

v) iMPact on Military Policing case suMMaries


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

22/44

to the earlier incident at the junior-ranks mess. The

commissionaire called the MP in charge o the patrol

shit who took charge with the intention o nding a

way to get the complainant to the hospital.

The MP shit commander decided to administer an

alcohol screening device which the complainant passed.

However, as the complainant no longer elt well enough

to drive himsel, he was driven to the hospital by the

MP. Consideration was given to transerring the case to

the CFNIS because the suspect was an MP; however,

since he did not retain his policing credentials at that

time, the base MP detachment decided to handle the

investigation. During the investigation, the suspect was

arrested by MP or assault related to this incident and

released on certain conditions.

The complainants conduct complaint and request or

review raised the ollowing allegations against various

detachment MP:

SlowresponsebytheMPtotheghtingincident;

Impropergroundsforbreathtestdemandofthe

complainant;

Failuretoprovidecomplainanttimelyassistancein

obtaining medical treatment or with regular updatesas a victim on the progress o the investigation;

Conductofaninvestigationthatwasinadequate

or biased in avour o the suspect due to his MP

status; and,

Failuretohavethesuspectchargedbyexercising

peace ocer jurisdiction over the case or transer-

ring it to the CFNIS.

The Commission determined the complainants

allegations were not substantiated, except or theailure to provide the complainant with regular updates

on the investigation, in keeping with his status as a

victim. The CFPM had also noted this omission in his

proessional standards investigation o the complaint.

Although the Commission largely vindicated the conduct

o the MP in question, it did make a number o recom-

mendations to improve MP policies and procedures or

dealing with similar cases. For example:

greaterclarityshouldbeprovidedastowhich

members o MP detachments should be respon-

sible or various duties; and,

subjectsunitsshouldprovidetimely,formal

responses to MP investigation reports to preserve

evidence, update victims and or quality control.

The Commissions recommendations were accepted.

b) Conduct Complaint DiscourteousTrafc Stop

This complaint arose rom a routine trac stop in a

daycare centre parking lot adjacent to a military base.

The MP who was the subject o the complaint was on

patrol and pulled over the complainants vehicle because

the ront license plate was not properly mounted but

rather was lying on the dashboard.

The subject MPs and the complainants somewhat

heated interaction took place in ront o children at thedaycare, including the complainants young son. The

complainant viewed the subject MP as unduly aggres-

sive, loud and impatient. The subject MP perceived the

complainant to be challenging him, repeatedly reverting

to French even though he told the complainant he

could not understand French, and being uncooperative

and disrespectul o his rank and authority. The

subject MP suggested his superiors ollow-up with

the complainants chain o command, which they did,

to inormally express concern with the complainants

conduct. The complainant disputed the account o hisactions provided by the MP and no action was taken

by the complainants chain o command.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

23/44

The complainant alleged the subject MP breached the

Military Police Proessional Code o Conduct by: 1) acting

in a discourteous manner; and 2) misrepresenting

acts in his report o the incident. The complainant also

objected to the chain o command having been contacted.

In a later request or a review, the complainant suggested

there should have been an active oer o service in

French by the MP and expressed suspicion at the

disappearance o the MP vehicle recording o the trac

stop. The MP patrol car recording was ultimately located

ollowing a urther search o the MP detachment at the

Commissions urging. The Commission concluded the

recordings disappearance was inadvertent.

The Commission also concluded that:

ThesubjectMPsbehaviourwasinuencedbythe

complainants manner in dealing with him. Excess

loudness was not a deliberate act o discourteousness

breaching paragraph 4 (d) o the Military Police

Proessional Code o Conduct;

GivenrelevantDepartmentofNationalDefence

(DND) policies and the requirements o ederal

ocial languages legislation, there was no require-

ment or MP at this base to oer services in French,

given the lack o reasonable demand or suchservice; and,

Thecomplainantsallegationsregardingmisrepre-

sentation o the event and inappropriately complaining

to the chain o command were unsubstantiated.

Subsequently, the MP detachment issued a new

Standard Operating Procedure on the use and disposi-

tion o patrol car recordings. The Commission noted the

deault retention period o 60 days may not adequately

address the requirements o the conduct complaints

process, as set out in Part IV o the NDA (wherein acomplaint may be made up to one year ollowing an

incident). The Commission recommended the CFPM

review the relevant MP policies and procedures to

ensure the stipulated retention period or MP patrol car

recordings meets the requirements o the complaints

process. This recommendation was accepted.

c) Conduct Complaint Removal o a

Suspended Employee rom a DND Building

This complaint arose rom a call or service rommanagement personnel in a DND-controlled building.

The caller requested MP to be dispatched to the direc-

torate to provide assistance, i necessary, in connection

with the suspension o a directorate employee. Based

on the employees behavioral history, management had

concerns there might be a risk o a violent reaction by

the employee.

As it turned out, the employee let the workplace without

incident. However, the employee was unhappy the MP

had even become involved in the event, and elt theirinvolvement in his escort rom his place o work caused

him unnecessary humiliation. On this basis, the employee

led an MP conduct complaint.

The Commission determined the involvement and

conduct o the MP in this matter was appropriate. The

MP never interacted with the complainant and only

observed rather than escorted the complainant rom

his workplace. The escort itsel was done by a manage-

ment representative. As the MP were called upon to

perorm primarily a security unction, rather than a lawenorcement one, and there was no arrest or detention,

they were not required to satisy any particular legal

grounds to support their actions. Moreover, their

conduct at the scene was discreet and unobtrusive.

The complainants allegations were ound to be

unsubstantiated. The Commission recommended the

MP detachment in question proceed with plans to

install a recording system or the telephones in the

detachments dispatch centre. This recommendation

was accepted.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

24/44

d) Conduct Complaint Incident between

Minors on a School Bus

This conduct complaint arose rom an altercationbetween two minors (children o CF members) on a

school bus traveling rom the local town high school

to the CFB. As a result, one minor, the son o the

complainant, was charged with one count o assault

and two counts o uttering death threats. Four months

prior to the incident, the complainant had been employed

as the acting Ocer Commanding (OC) o the base

MP detachment.

The complainants conduct complaint against a MP Cpl

alleged:

theincidentoccurredoutsideofMPjurisdictionand

should not have been investigated by the MP;

theMPCplchargedtheminorinordertoretaliate

or previous actions taken by the complainant

against the MP Cpl while the complainant was the

acting OC o the base MP detachment; and,

theMPCplfailedtoproperlyandfullyinvestigate

the incident.

The Commission determined the complainants allega-

tions were not substantiated, with the exception o the

third allegation related to the MP Cpls investigation,

which was partially substantiated because it was lacking

in several respects: insucient note taking, issues

concerning the proper seizure and handling o evidence,

and the ailure to interview witnesses to the altercation.

The most notable omission was the ailure to attempt

to interview the accused minor prior to laying charges.

While the investigation o the incident was lacking in

some respects, the MP Cpl did have sucient grounds

on which to proceed with laying Criminal Code charges.

The assault (i.e. the accused spitting on the victim) is

clearly visible on the video surveillance recording o the

incident rom the school bus.

The Commission also remarked on the lack o supervi-

sory direction given to the MP Cpl in the investigation

o the incident and on the inappropriateness o the

actions o the MP complainant in conducting his own

interviews, with both civilians and MP members.

The Commission recommended the subject MP Cpl

be reminded o the importance o detailed note taking

and pursuing important investigative avenues. This

recommendation was accepted.

e) Conduct Complaint Domestic

Violence Incident

This complaint involved allegations a MP Sergeant

(Sgt) in charge o patrols at a detachment ailed to

arrest or charge a suspect in a domestic violence case

in violation o applicable policies and procedures.

The Commissions investigation revealed the MP Sgt in

question acted on the basis o the inormation provided

by the investigating corporal, which suggested that any

assault was minor. The MP subject also orwarded

the inormation to prosecuting counsel who advised

against an arrest and charges in the circumstances.

As such, the complaint was not substantiated.

However, the Commission recommended the CFPM

ensure MP policies and procedures at the national and

local levels appropriately refect the need to record

inormation exchanges between MP and their legal

advisors, which support decisions regarding charges

in MP investigative les.

This recommendation was accepted. In doing so, the

CFPM noted: The Canadian Forces Military Police Group

Orders, which are expected to be promulgated in thenext ew months, will address the need to record

the rationale o decisions in writing in Security and

Military Police Inormation System (SAMPIS) including

inormation exchanges between military police and

their legal advisors.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

25/44

) Intererence Complaint

Removing Civilians rom a Break

and Enter Crime Scene

This complaint arose rom a dispute between the

complainant, a MP corporal, and his supervisor, a MP

sergeant, regarding the proper approach to processing

a break and enter crime scene. In this case, the

complainant was dispatched to an on-base residence

ater cleaning sta had detected a break-in. The

complainant and his partner began to conduct their

investigation and the complainant asked the cleaners

to assist identiying items in the residence which

appeared to be missing or otherwise out o place.

When the subject o the complaint arrived to check

on the investigators progress, the subject noted the

cleaners were still inside the residence and questioned

the complainant. A heated exchange took place between

them as to the appropriateness o keeping the cleaners

at the crime scene. The subject asked the cleaners to

wait outside and ultimately directed the complainant

to obtain their names and send them away.

The complainant led an intererence complaint

with the Commission about the subjects actions in:

1) impeding his investigation by sending the cleaners

away, thus curtailing his attempt to identiy missing

or out o place items; and 2) allegedly berating him in

ront o civilian workers. The Commission concluded

the complaint was unsubstantiated.

With regard to the alleged berating o the complainant,

the Commissions investigation revealed, while a airly

loud and heated exchange did occur between the subject

and the complainant, there was some evidence both

parties were airly assertive. In the Commissions view,

such behavior is an issue o interpersonal conduct and

not one o intererence in an investigation.

Finally, the Commission concluded the subjects

decision to have the cleaners removed rom the crime

scene did not constitute improper intererence but was

reasonable rom the standpoint o proper law enorce-

ment procedure. Moreover, there was no evidence the

action by the subject was taken in bad aith or or some

improper purpose, which, as the Commission has noted

in previous intererence cases, is required in order to

substantiate a complaint o improper intererence

against an MP with supervisory authority over the

investigation in question.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

26/44

(a) Second Independent Review o the

National Defence Act (C-25)

In 2011, the Minister o National Deense (MND)

appointed the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, retired

Chie Justice o the Ontario Superior Court, to conduct

the Second Independent Review o the NDA.

The review deals not with the entire NDA but only with

those changes introduced in Bill C-25 (Statutes o Canada

1998, Chapter 35), though these were extensive. BillC-25 requires the MND to conduct an independent review

o the provisions and operation o the Bill every ve years,

and to table a report o the review in Parliament. The

Bill made important amendments to the Act concerning

the military justice system, the CF grievance process

and created the MP complaints process.

On June 23, 2011, the Commission submitted a com-

prehensive brie to the Independent Review Authority

containing proposals in our areas: the scope o MP

oversight; the Commissions access to inormation; airand ecient procedures; and MP independence.

On June 8, 2012, the report o the Honourable Patrick

J. LeSage was released. In this report, the Honourable

Patrick J. LeSage endorsed a ew o the Commissions

modest procedural proposals, or example:

atimelimitof90daysforrequestingareviewby

the Commission o a conduct complaint ater it has

been investigated by the CFPM;

automaticextensionofthetermofCommission

members in respect o complaint les assigned

to them;

reducingthecategoriesofconductcomplaints

which are presently excluded rom inormal

resolution under the regulations; and,

allowingpersonssecondedtoMPpositionsto

make intererence complaints.

Unortunately, the Commissions most vital proposals

aimed at improving its capacity to address complaintseciently and credibly notably, the need to enhance

its authority to obtain relevant inormation were

eectively not addressed. These proposals related to

issues such as: giving the Commission the authority to

decide whether or not a complaint about an MP member

should be treated as a conduct complaint and subject to

the legislated complaints process, including indepen-

dent oversight by the Commission; and narrowing some

o the signicant gaps in the Commissions existing

authority to gain access to relevant inormation and

evidence.

As these changes are necessary or the Commission to

properly discharge the mandate which Parliament has

given it, the Commission will continue to pursue them.

The Commissions complete submissions and list o

proposals to the Second Independent Review o the

NDA are available on the Commissions website.

vi) legislative renewal


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

27/44

(b) Bill C-15,Strengthening Military

Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

Bill C-15 was tabled in the House o Commons onOctober 7, 2011. The Bill received second reading and

was reerred to Committee on December 12, 2012.

Bill C-15 proposes a number o amendments to the

NDA primarily related to the military justice system or

the CF. While the Bill does not directly address the

jurisdiction or authorities o the Commission, one

provision o the Bill o concern to the Commission

relates to the proposed authority o the VCDS to direct

particular MP investigations: s.18.5 (3) (in Clause 4

o the Bill). The Commission regards this proposal ashighly problematic and it submitted a brie on this

matter to the House o Commons Standing Committee

on National Deence.

This proposed authority would eectively abrogate key

provisions o the March 2, 1998, Accountability Framework

signed by the VCDS and the CFPM o the day. The purpose

o this Framework was to adapt the command rela-

tionship o the VCDS and CFPM to ensure the CFPM

would retain appropriate independence rom the chain

o command in the conduct o individual law enorce-

ment investigations.

More recently, the independence and integrity o military

policing have been urther supported through changes

to the MP command structure. Eective April 1, 2011,

all MP members in the perormance o their policing

duties are under the command o the CFPM. The

proposed authority or the VCDS in subsection 18.5 (3)

(in Clause 4 o the Bill) is thus out o step with eorts

over the past 15 to 20 years to recognize and support

the independence o the MP within the CF, particularly

when conducting law enorcement investigations.

Perhaps more importantly, the authority in question

runs counter to Canadian law and practice regarding

the independence o police investigations generally.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

28/44

StewardshipExcellence

Making real progress on integrated planning

across the public service continues to be a pillar

o sustainable renewal.

Wayn G. Wotrs, Crk of th Privy Conci

7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

29/44

PART

3

The Commission has strenghened its planning regime

which integrates nance, human resources (HR), risk

management, investment planning, security, inormation

technology (IT), inormation management (IM), and green-

ing strategies, plans and initiatives to acilitate planning,

decision making and prudent resource management.

The ollowing sections describe the Commissions

stewardship towards integrating strategic, operational

and investment plans.

In 2012, the Commission continued to demonstrate

sound management o its nancial resources. It eec-

tively planned, managed and controlled its budget and

expenditures to meet operational requirements, as well

as to meet legislative and increased central agency

requirements including timely, accurate external nan-

cial reporting. Throughout 2012, regular nancial

updates were provided to the Executive Committee

and central agencies to reinorce rigorous nancial

management and control.

Investment Plan: The ve-year Investment Plan

or scal years 2011-12 to 2015-16 is part o the

Commissions Financial Management Framework

to align with the strategic, operational and nancial

planning cycle. It identies new and existing assets,

acquired services and projects essential to deliver the

programs in order to meet the Commissions mandate.

The Commission implemented business processes to

ensure oversight in the implementation o investment

decisions and appropriate ongoing measurement o

investment perormance.

In 2012, the ve-year Investment Plan was approvedand implemented in conjunction with related Treasury

Board policies governing assets, acquired services and

projects.

Human Resources Planning: The Commission continuedto stress eective HR planning to the greatest degree

possible, notwithstanding a number o challenges.

Measures have been implemented, such as trying to

anticipate potential sta turnover, developing stang

strategies to help ensure knowledge is retained (e.g.

through employee learning plans) and ensuring

vacancies are lled as quickly as possible.

Stafng: The Commission is a micro-agency, and assuch, one Commission employee may oversee several

programs. Stang delays result in increased costs to

the Commission to back-ll the position, as well as

the transer o workload onto other employees who

are already ully engaged in ullling their existing

responsibilities.

i) integrated Planning

ii) integrated Financial ManageMent

iii) integrated huMan resources ManageMent


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

30/44

The Commission examined innovative ways to reduce

the cost and time involved in stang a position while

maintaining the existing robust Stang Management

Accountability Framework (SMAF) within the Commission,

as conrmed through the Departmental Stang

Accountability Framework (DSAR). The Commission

has been successul in increasing its eciencies in

stang, by substantially reducing the time it takes to

sta a position and reducing costs. By optimizing the

internal stang processes, the Commission was able

to sta all vacant positions by May 2012 and has since

retained100%ofthepersonnelinthesepositions.

Employee Recognition: Throughout the year, the

Commission continued to recognize the eorts o its

employees. During National Public Service Week in

June 2012, the Chairperson hosted an awards and

recognition appreciation ceremony. At this ceremony,

a number o employees were publicly recognized or

their contributions.

To urther reinorce a positive working environment

throughout the year the Commission also hosted sta

events such as team building exercises and other

activities to celebrate important milestones, work

achievements and to recognize individual sta accom-

plishments. Such eorts were particularly important

given the considerable additional workload sta

members have been balancing due to the signicant

increased demands on the Commission. This year,

Commission sta again contributed generously to the

Government o Canada Workplace Charitable Campaign

through und raising events and other activities.

Public Service Employee Survey: In the all o 2011,

a survey o all public service employees took place

to seek employee perceptions regarding leadership,workorce and workplace conditions, as well as to

measure employee engagement, its drivers and its

outcomes. The survey also identies areas or improve-

ment at the public-service-wide, departmental and

organizationalunitlevels.Onehundredpercent(100%)

o the Commissions employees completed the survey.

The results o the survey were received in February

2012. Among the highlights:

Commissionemployeesarehighlyengagedintheir

work and are supported by management with the

appropriate tools and training;

Onehundredpercent(100%)ofemployeesfeelthey

have input into decisions that aect their own work

and that the Commission works hard to create a

workplace that prevents discrimination; and, Commissionemployeeshavepositiverelationships

with their co-workers, have condence in senior

management and know how their work contributes

to the achievement o Commission goals.

It is worth noting the positive responses o Commission

employees were generally above the Public Service

average. The Commission developed an Action Plan to

address survey results where appropriate. For example,

as part o its commitment to ensure its workplace

continues to remain ree o harassment and discrimi-nation, the Commission continues to encourage and

oster an open and ongoing dialogue between managers

and employees.

To urther reinorce employee awareness o values and

ethics, the Commission communicated the Values and

Ethics Code or the Public Sectoras well as the Policy on

Confict o Interest and Post-Employment, along with the

Commissions own Code o Values and Ethics. Among

other things, the Commissions Code o Values and

Ethics reinorces Commission values o mutual respect,integrity, airness, dedication, open and eective

communication and proessionalism.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

31/44

In 2012, the Commission was challenged with several

events which had an impact on its programs. Throughout

the year, the Commission integrated a risk manage-

ment approach, by analyzing impacts and developing

mitigating strategies to ensure it operates eciently

and eectively. This included areas such as nancial

management, resourcing/stang, capacity building,

audits, media/public aairs and public interest hear-

ings (PIH).

In 2012, the Commission updated its Integrated Risk

Management Framework Plans and Strategies to

include new policies, requirements and audit recom-

mendations into its risk prole. By doing so, the

Commission is able to proactively mitigate risks by

having pre-dened strategies. Where possible and

easible, the Commission conducts management

reviews to identiy gaps thereby, taking action to ensure

appropriate steps are taken, in order to be proactive,

rather than reactive.

The Commission strives to provide a healthy, sae

and secure workplace through mandatory training,

awareness and communiqus regarding its security

and emergency programs, services and processes. As

such, security and business continuity and emergencyprocedures are integrated throughout the Commission.

Through prevention and awareness, the Commission is

able to proactively respond to incidences or emergencies

eectively while maintaining operational momentum.

In addition to the traditional security monitoring, the

Commission ocused on reviewing its IT security during

the past year as cyber threats are viewed as an emerging

risk. The Commission continuously increases its

awareness o cyber threats both internally and exter-

nally. In addition to maintaining its own security, the

Commission extends its awareness to home networks

to prevent viruses rom attacking personal computers

or perpetrating identity thet, to name a ew.

The Commission completed its IT modernizationproject, ully documenting the new system and revising

its business continuity and IT security plans to refect

the new inrastructure and minimize risk.

The Commission continuously conducted tests and

drills during hearings to ensure saety procedures

adhered to the increased number o people attending.

This included ensuring saety equipment is properly

maintained, and personnel are trained in CPR and the

use o the debrillator.

iv) integrated risk ManageMent

v) integrated security, health and saFety, andBusiness continuity


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

32/44

Consistent with the Federal Governments innovations,

the Commission continued to urther modernize its

inormation technology inrastructure and website.

Progress on the IT projects would not have been made

possible without the dedication and excellent services

o the Commissions IT sta.

Standard on Web Interoperability: In 2012, the

Commission advanced its work to adapt its website to

comply with the new government standard. During the

year, the Commission implemented the Standard on

Web Interoperability, which is dened as the ability o

dierent types o platorms, devices, networks, and

applications to work together eectively, without prior

communication, to nd, retrieve, exchange and re-use

Web content in a useul and meaningul manner.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0):

In 2011, the Federal Court ordered the Government o

Canada to make the websites o all institutions listed

under Schedules I, I.1 and II o the Financial Administration

Act compliant with the internationally recognized WCAG

2.0. The Commission completed the necessary actions

to ensure ull compliance with WCAG 2.0.

An external audit conrmed the Commissions websitewasonehundredpercent(100%)compliantintherst

phase o the project.

Electronic Document and Records Management

Solutions (EDRMS): Following the IT and IM

management reviews and the IM Audit, action plans

were implemented to identiy an EDRMS to best meet

the requirements in all areas o the Commission in

managing the liecycle o electronic inormation,

including litigation and case management les. This

solution will be pursued in the coming year and beyond,

based on the aordability o doing so.

Library Collection: In 2012, the Commissions library

implemented an extensive analysis o its collection.

When available, the library endeavors to make use o

electronic resources accessible on the internet and in

other appropriate legal databases. This resulted in a

streamlined electronic collection to better serve itsneeds, a reduction in the librarys monetary spending

on traditional books and other publications, as well as

a reduction in foor space required to house the library

collection.

Access to Inormation and Privacy: The number o

requests under theAccess to Inormation Act and

Privacy Act increased due, in part, to the Aghan and

the Fynes PIH. The Commission successully met the

30-day response time limit or the majority o these

requests. Due to the increased number o requests, it

was necessary or the Commission to hire additional

temporary resources to meet workload demands. In

accordance with the requirements o the Treasury BoardSecretariat, the Commission published summaries o

completed access to inormation requests on its website,

in both ocial languages.

As part o the process or the Fynes PIH, the Commission

conducted a review o all exhibits, which encompassed

over 18,000 pages.

vi) integrated inForMation technology

vii) integrated inForMation ManageMent


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

33/44

The Commission supports the Federal Sustainable

Development Strategy and related central agency policies

and guidelines, such as the Green Procurement Strategy.

The Commission also committed to specic greening

targets in its Departmental Perormance Report.

The Commission undertook other greening initiatives

such as:

reviewingandstreamliningitslibrarycollection;

identifyinganelectronicdocumentandrecordsmanagement solution;

adaptingprintingandForestStewardshipCouncil

(FSC) standard stationary needs to use more

environmentally riendly recycled paper;

increasingtheuseofscanningande-mail;and,

acquiringenergyefcientappliancesandelectronic

equipment.

The Commission will continue to seek and identiy

other opportunities to urther green its activities.

In the 2012-13 scal year (FY), the Commissions

revised total budget amounted to $8.8M. The revised

budget consisted o the Commissions ongoing budget

o $3.5M and special purpose unding o $5.3M.

The Treasury Board approved additional unding in

FY 2008-09 or the Aghanistan PIH in the amount o

$5M over a three-year period. The Aghanistan PIH

continued longer than originally expected nishing

in FY 2012-13.

In FY 2012-13, the Commission requested additional

unds rom the Treasury Board to und or unexpected

activities directly related to the ongoing Fynes PIH. The

Commission received $3.5M in additional unding over atwo-year period.

In 2012, the Commission received a multi-jurisdictional

conduct review complaint and requested additional

unding rom the Treasury Board. The Commission

received $1.7M over a three-year period.

viii) greening initiatives

iX) Five-year Budget and eXPenditure coMParison

F y

a exp ( $ )

upM

emt

a op sempBf

texp-

2011-12 3,508 6,035 3,110 1,557 256 4,923 1,112

2010-11 4,685 7,020 5,073 1,341 241 6,655 365

2009-10 5,973 6,853 2,839 1,570 275 4,684 2,169

2008-09 3,434 4,882 2,159 1,468 240 3,867 1,015

2007-08 3,434 3,489 2,002 1,100 295 2,909 580

ANNuAl RePORT 2012 BuDGeT TABle


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

34/44

Policy on Internal Control: The Commission con-

ducted a management review to determine the level

o compliance with the Policy on Internal Control. The

Commission also implemented new controls in order

to mitigate risks thus ensuring the eectiveness and

eciency o programs; operational and resource

management; the reliability o nancial reporting; and

compliance with legislation, regulations, policies and

delegated authorities.

Stafng Management Review: In 2012, the Commission

completed its annual stang management review which

began in 2010-11 and examined compliance, trends,

costs, length o time to sta, risks, and le management.

The results o the review reinorced the Commissions

stang practices, and identied urther opportunities

to ensure all stang actions continue to be managed

and administered in accordance with applicable legisla-

tion and delegation o authorities.

Core Control Audit: In 2011, the Commission partici-

pated in a central agency audit o core controls and

received its nal report in 2012. The purpose o this

audit was to ensure the Commissions core controls

over nancial management are eective and in compli-

ance with corresponding legislation, policies and

directives. Areas examined included delegation onancial authorities, acquisition cards, contracting,

hospitality, and travel.

The ndings were positive in the majority o cases and

underscored the Commissions proactive processes

and procedures. A Management Action Plan (MAP) was

developed to address the reports recommendations in

such areas as expenditure initiation documentation,

documentation in support o bid solicitations and

contracting decisions, and employee leave transactions.

Eorts were also made to reinorce sta training and

awareness o new requirements in order to build

more robust business procedures. The majority o

the action items in the MAP were completed in 2012.

The MAP can be ound on the Commissions website.

The Commission respects the governments need or

these new business procedures and controls. However,they are resource and time intensive, particularly or a

micro-agency with relatively small dollar value expen-

ditures compared to larger government departments.

Notwithstanding an extremely busy year which challenged

sta and limited resources, the Commission struggled

to meet these new requirements. To the best o its ability,

the Commission will continue to apply these required

procedures within the context o its continuing need to

ensure operational eectiveness.

X) ManageMent reviews

Xi) horizontal audits


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

35/44

In 2012, the Commission continued its outreach and

collaborative initiatives with the Military Police (MP)

community, the military chain o command and other

organizations within and outside government. These

initiatives enabled the Commission not only to share

inormation regarding its mandate and responsibilities,

but also to discuss case examples and the Commissions

ndings and recommendations. In addition, the

Commission was able to gain a urther perspective

rom these groups with respect to issues aced by the

MP and the larger Canadian Forces (CF) community.

Visits to Canadian Forces Bases across

Canada

On an annual basis, the Commission meets with three

primary audiences at CF bases across Canada in order

to increase awareness o its mandate and activities, as

well as to respond to any concerns about the complaints

process. These audiences are:

MembersoftheMPwhoaremostaffectedbytheprocess, whether as subjects o complaints or as

potential complainants;

Themilitarychainofcommand,whichreliesonthe

services o members o the MP in the maintenance

o military discipline but which must not interere

with police investigations; and,

ThosewhomayinteractwiththeMPbecause

they live, work or pass through a CF base. The

Commissions connection to this group is oten

made through the Executive Directors and sta

o the Military Family Resources Centres andHousing authorities at each base.

During 2012, representatives o the Commission visited

seven CF bases making ormal presentations and having

inormal discussions with attendees at the ollowing

locations across Canada:

Montral,Quebec

St-Jean,Quebec

Meaford,Ontario

Trenton,Ontario

Borden,OntarioEsquimalt,BritishColumbia

Comox,BritishColumbia

Bases are selected rom logistical and geographical

aspects to help ensure the broadest access to these

inormation sessions but, in particular, consideration

is given to respecting and accommodating the demands

associated with the signicant operational realities at

these bases.

The participants in the 2012 inormation sessions

provided very positive eedback on the value o the

presentations, the case examples used and the clarity

o the Commissions responses to questions.

The Commission also made presentations at the

Canadian Forces Military Police Academys (CFMPA),

Qualiying Level 5 training sessions, in Borden, Ontario

to increase awareness o its mandate and processes.

Four such presentations were made, attended by

24 participants at each session.

The Commission very much appreciates the eorts o

the many individuals who organized, supported and

participated in its outreach activities and its sessions

at the bases and the CFMPA.

Xii) outreach and collaBoration


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

36/44

Faculty o Law o the University o

Ottawa Military Law Class

On February 8, 2012, the Commissions General Counseland Senior Counsel made a presentation to the Military

Law Class o the University o Ottawa Faculty o Law,

providing background on the role o the Commission,

its unction and the types o complaints it investigates.

Topics covered included the Commissions governing

legislation, public condence and trust, the rule o law,

the purpose o oversight, the conduct and intererence

complaints process, selected case examples, and

the Commissions proposals related to the Second

Independent Review o the National Deence Act.

Military Police Symposium

On February 21, 2012, the Commission Chairperson

and the General Counsel attended the Military Police

Symposium in Cornwall, Ontario, and made a well-

received presentation to MP Ocers regarding the role

o the Commission and its supporting complaints

processes, with a special emphasis on intererence

complaints, as well as current issues o interest and

concern.

Collaborative Working Relationships

In 2012, the Commission continued its ongoing discus-

sions with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and

Deputy Commander Canadian Forces Military Police

Group/Proessional Standards to address and resolve

issues and even urther strengthen the complaints

resolution process.

The Commission also continued its mutually benecial

working relationships with other government depart-ments and agencies, proessional associations and

intra-government aliations.

Presentation by Chairperson to

Adjudicators Conerence

On November 22, 2012, the Commission Chairpersontook part in the 10th Anniversary Annual Adjudicator and

Prosecutions Seminar in Orillia, Ontario, as a guest

speaker. He made a presentation to the conerence

participants regarding the role o the Commission and

its complaints process, as well as current issues o

concern.

Directorate o Deence Counsel Services,

Ofce o the Judge Advocate General,

Department o National Deence

On October 24, 2012, the Commissions Senior

Counsel made a presentation regarding the role o

the Commission and relevant issues at the Directorate

o Deence Counsel Services (DDCS) training day or

DDCS counsel. DDCS is dedicated to providing legal

services to CF personnel who are suspected o or charged

with oences under the Code o Service Discipline.

Proessional Associations

The Commission continued to be involved with proes-sional associations, such as the Canadian Association

o Chies o Police (CACP), the Ontario Association o

Chies o Police (OACP), the Canadian Association or

Civilian Oversight o Law Enorcement (CACOLE), the

Canadian Bar Association (CBA) and the Heads o

Federal Administrative Tribunals Forum (HFATF).

CACOLE is a national non-prot organization o

individuals and agencies involved in the oversight o

police ocers in Canada. It is dedicated to advancing

the concept, principles and application o civilian oversighto law enorcement throughout Canada and abroad.

CACOLE is recognized worldwide or its oversight

leadership. The Commission Chairperson is a member

o the Board o Directors o CACOLE.


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

37/44

The Commissions Chairperson, Glenn M. Stannard

and other Commission representatives attended the

CACOLEs annual meeting on May 28-29, 2012.

The CBA is a proessional, voluntary organization which

represents some 35,000 lawyers, judges, notaries, law

teachers, and law students across Canada. Through

the work o its sections, committees and task orces at

both the national and branch levels, the CBA is seen as

an important and objective voice on issues o signicance

to both the legal proession and the public. The Senior

Counsel o the Commission is an Executive Member o

the CBAs Military Law Section.

On June 8, 2012, the Commissions Senior Counsel

made a presentation concerning the Commission and

relevant issues to lawyer participants in the CBAs

Military Law Section continuing legal education program.

The Chairperson o the Commission is a lie member

o both the CACP and the OACP and is a ormer

president o the OACP.

Intra-Government Afliations

The Commission continued to participate in co-operative

intra-government aliations through its membership

in a variety o Small Agencies initiatives. These include

the HFATF, the Personnel Advisory Group, the Small

Agencies Financial Action Group, the Small Agency

Administrators Network and the Association o the

Independent Federal Institutions Counsel.

The Commission eectively met media and other public

relations demands rom within and outside governmentor inormation, particularly related to: the Aghanistan

PIH and the associated Final Report issued on June 27,

2012; and the PIH into the complaint o Mr. and Mrs. Fynes

regarding the MP investigations conducted ater the

death o their son, Corporal Stuart Langridge. Due to

increased media requests or both the Aghanistan

PIH and the Fynes PIH, the Commission was required

to hire additional temporary resources to assist in

communications.

The Commission continued to provide timely, open

inormation through press releases, media advisories,backgrounders and other documents, including updates

on its website and individually tailored responses, as

required.

Xiii) Media/PuBlic relations


7/30/2019 3000-2012-eng[1]

38/44

When the Military Polices credibility is in

question, the MPCC believes it can

3000-2012-eng[1]

Documents

Transcript of 3000-2012-eng[1]