Navigation Links
Annual Report 2000
Table of Contents
- THE SYSTEM OF ETHICS APPLICABLE TO THE MILITARY POLICE
MILITARY POLICE WORKFORCE
The system of ethics applicable to the military police affects approximately 1,200 police members, 100 of whom form the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, deployed mainly in Canada but also abroad.
Normally, members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service conduct investigations into serious criminal or military offences as well as so-called sensitive investigations, meaning those involving a senior officer or a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence filling an equivalent senior position. Investigations of offences committed involving certain property (e.g. computer equipment) are also treated as sensitive.
Military police hold the status of peace officers and have jurisdiction over all persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline throughout Canada and abroad wherever the Canadian Forces are stationed or deployed. They also have jurisdiction over all persons on or in Department of National Defence property. Military bases are becoming increasingly open to the general public. Therefore, those who move about the bases are subject to military police intervention just as civilian police would intervene in their areas of jurisdiction.
TWO TYPES OF COMPLAINTS
Two types of complaint determine the way in which military police complaints are handled: Conduct Complaints and Interference Complaints.
Conduct Complaint
Any person, including members of the military police, the Canadian Forces or Department of National Defence civilian personnel, whether affected by the complaint subject-matter or not, may make a complaint about the conduct of the military police in the performance of any policing duties or functions prescribed in regulations set out by the Governor in Council.
The Commission Chairperson may bring to the attention of the Provost Marshal circumstances involving the conduct of the military police and ask that the Provost Marshal conduct an investigation.
The “Complaints About the Conduct of Members of the Military Police Regulations
” of the Governor in Council are included in Annex C.
Interference Complaint
Any member of the military police who conducts or supervises an investigation may make a complaint about an officer, non-commissioned officer or senior official of the Department of National Defence, who, through intimidation, abuse of authority or otherwise, has interfered with the investigation.
FILING OF COMPLAINTS
Time limit
No complaint may be made more than one year after the event giving rise to the complaint. However, under certain circumstances, the Chairperson may extend this time at the request of the complainant.
The Commission has no jurisdiction over complaints involving an incident that occurred prior to December 1, 1999, the date the Commission was established. The Act contains a provision to this effect. These complaints, received during the year 2000, were handled by the Provost Marshal according to the internal procedures in place before December 1, 1999.
Notwithstanding the above, should it be deemed necessary, the Commission may examine events that occurred prior to December 1, 1999, in order to better understand circumstances surrounding more recent events.
Submission
A conduct or interference complaint may be made, either verbally or in writing, to the Commission Chairperson, the Judge Advocate General or the Provost Marshal. A conduct complaint may also be made to any member of the military police.
Follow-up
The complainant receives an acknowledgement of receipt of their complaint and the subject of the complaint is advised of its content. Following this, both are periodically advised of the progress of the case until it is resolved.
Withdrawal
A complainant who wishes to withdraw a complaint may do so by sending written notice to the Chairperson.
The Chairperson may choose to conduct an investigation, despite a complaint being withdrawn.
CANADIAN FORCES PROVOST MARSHAL, A KEY PLAYER IN THE SYSTEM
The functions of the Provost Marshal are comparable, in many respects, to those of the Chief of a civilian police force. The Provost Marshal delegates some of her duties to her Deputies, for example the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards.
The Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards, is responsible for inspecting and verifying all military police functions, investigating breaches in professional standards and managing the process for dealing with complaints from the public.
Therefore, when the Provost Marshal is mentioned in this document, reference is generally being made to the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards.
If a complaint received from a member of the general public involves the conduct of the military police in the performance of duties as prescribed in regulations of the Governor in Council, it will be handled according to the provisions of Part IV of the Act and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
All other complaints, meaning those involving events prior to December 1, 1999 or conduct occurring outside the performance of policing duties or functions, are handled according to the internal procedures of the Provost Marshal. The Commission has no right of oversight over these complaints.
HANDLING OF A CONDUCT COMPLAINT
With the exception of particular cases where the Chairperson may intervene in the public interest, the Provost Marshal is responsible for handling the initial stages of conduct complaints.
Informal Resolution
Upon receiving a conduct complaint, the Provost Marshal acknowledges receipt to the complainant, advises the military police member who is the subject of the complaint of its substance and advises the Commission Chairperson. If the complaint is deemed eligible, the Provost Marshal may attempt to resolve it informally after obtaining the consent of the parties involved. The Chairperson believes the Provost Marshal should, to the greatest extent possible, encourage the informal resolution of complaints. However, certain categories of complaints, as set out in regulations of the Governor in Council, cannot be resolved informally. These regulations are included at Annex C.
Investigation
Failing an informal resolution, the Provost Marshal may decide to investigate, end an investigation in progress or refuse to conduct an investigation for one of the reasons outlined in the Act, most notably if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.
Should an investigation be conducted, the Provost Marshal sends the complainant, the military police member who is the subject of the complaint and the Chairperson a report containing the following:
- a summary of the complaint;
- the findings of the investigation;
- a summary of any action that has been or will be taken with respect to disposition of the complaint; and
- the right of the complainant to refer the complaint to the Commission for review, if not satisfied with the disposition of the complaint.
The Provost Marshal opens and maintains a file of all complaints received and, upon request, sends all information contained in the file to the Commission. This provision of the Act, among others, allows the Commission to perform its monitoring role.
Review
A complainant, who is dissatisfied with a direction by the Provost Marshal to refuse or end informal resolution or an investigation, or the disposition of the conduct complaint as indicated in an investigation report, may request that the Commission review the complaint. In this case, the Provost Marshal shall provide the Chairperson with all information and materials relevant to the complaint.
It should be noted that the Act contains no provision limiting the time a complainant may wait before requesting a complaint be reviewed.
After reviewing the complaint, the Chairperson may find that the Provost Marshal handled the complaint in a suitable manner. Similarly, the Chairperson may be satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Provost Marshal but may disagree with the conclusions reached. In this case, the Chairperson may make her own recommendations.
Should the Chairperson not be satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Provost Marshal, she may conduct her own investigation. If she arrives at conclusions which differ from those of the Provost Marshal, she will propose her own recommendations.
HANDLING OF AN INTERFERENCE COMPLAINT
The Chairperson has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. The Chairperson may refuse to conduct an investigation or may end an investigation already underway for any of the reasons outlined in the Act, most notably if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. Decisions made by the Chairperson to refuse to conduct an investigation are final.
It should also be noted that in the Act the legislator expressly acknowledged the right of members of the military police to make an interference complaint about a superior officer. Therefore, in order for this right to be freely and fully exercised, it is crucial that military police members be both encouraged to do so and supported in their stand as regards superior officers in situations of interference.
Military police members should not feel vulnerable after reporting an interference case. They should not have to fear that their performance evaluations, employment, promotional opportunities or future assignments are in jeopardy. They must feel that they are protected from any possible acts of retaliation.
The Chairperson understands that military police members may hesitate to submit an interference complaint about a superior and also recognizes that the Act provides her with no specific authority to intervene following inappropriate behaviour on the part of officers. Nevertheless, the Chairperson wishes to assure the military police of her support, as required, in their efforts to rectify a situation. Further, she intends to soon give consideration to possible measures providing some form of protection to military police members, while discouraging reprisals by senior officers.
SPECIAL POWER OF THE CHAIRPERSON
According to the provisions contained in section 250.38(1) of the Act, should she consider it advisable in the public interest, the Chairperson may, at any point in the handling of a conduct or interference complaint, cause the Commission to conduct an investigation and, where circumstances warrant, hold a public hearing into a complaint.
The decision of the Chairperson to conduct an investigation or hold a hearing on a conduct complaint suspends the handling of the complaint by the Provost Marshal.
Any disciplinary or criminal proceeding before a court or tribunal of first instance that relates to the same conduct that is the subject of a complaint, prompts the suspension of all public hearings of the Commission until the proceedings are completed.
REPORTS
Requests for review and investigations by the Commission all conclude with the publication of two reports; the Interim Report and the Final Report.
Interim Report
The interim report is the first of the two reports. It states the Chairperson's findings and recommendations, or those of the Commission in cases where a hearing has been held.
The interim report is generally sent to the Minister, the Judge Advocate General and the Provost Marshal, as well as to the Chief of the Defence Staff or Deputy Minister, if the person who is the subject of the complaint is a member of the military or a senior departmental official, respectively.
Depending on whether the complaint concerns conduct or interference, the interim report is generally reviewed by the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Provost Marshal, unless they themselves are subjects of the complaint.
The person who reviews the interim report notifies the Minister and the Commission Chairperson of any action taken or intended to be taken with respect to the complaint. This person is not bound by the findings and recommendations set out in the interim report, but must justify in the notice the reasons for not acting on these findings or recommendations.
Final Report
After considering the notice received from the person who reviewed the interim report, the Chairperson prepares the final report stating her findings and recommendations.
The Chairperson is not bound by the content of the notice. However, she considers this a most important step in the process, as it allows her to obtain the opinion of experts in military issues. This provision of the Act should reassure members of the military police who have, on many occasions, expressed their reservations about the extent to which Commission personnel understand military culture and practices.
The final report is sent to:
- the Minister and Deputy Minister;
- the Chief of the Defence Staff;
- the Judge Advocate General;
- the Provost Marshal;
- the complainant;
- the person who is the subject of the complaint;
- all persons who have satisfied the Commission that they have a substantial and direct interest in the complaint.
The complaint handling process chart is included as Annex D.