Navigation Links
Annual Report 2000
Table of Contents
- REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES - 2000
REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES - 2000
COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
After three months of intensive preparation, the Commission began work on December 1, 1999. At the time, there was only a minimum of staff and equipment with which to operate. The year 2000 drew heavily on our personnel to organize the Commission effectively.
One of the most laborious, but necessary, tasks was to determine the personnel required, define the organization's structure, plan the floor space required for the offices and identify the equipment needed. This exercise consisted of analysing the progression of a complaint and identifying every possible step involved, the interventions by personnel into each of these steps and the amount of time allocated by each person. The average time calculated was then multiplied by the number of complaints estimated on an annual basis. This number was arrived at by basing ourselves on the percentage of complaints normally received in various Canadian police forces of a given size. The data available from the Provost Marshal for the past two years was also taken into account.
To validate the estimated resource needs of the Commission, a comparative analysis was conducted using the needs of a similar organization: the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, chaired by Shirley Heafey. The Chairperson wishes to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Ms. Heafey and her team for their invaluable assistance during the establishing of the Commission.
During the 2000 business year, most positions were filled on a contractual basis or on secondment for a period of at least one year, including that of Director of Operations, who replaced a police ethics specialist whose services had been engaged on a temporary basis.
In order to reduce overall administration costs, the Commission had reached a verbal agreement with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for financial and human resources services. For reasons beyond the Commission's control, this agreement never materialized. Instead, these services have been provided since June 2000, and will continue to be provided until March 31, 2001, by the Passport Office. Discussions took place in the fall of 2000 with the Canadian Forces Grievance Board for the purpose of having them provide the Commission with Financial and Human Resources services, for which they would be remunerated, effective April 2001. For our part, the Commission would furnish informatics services to the Grievance Board.
In June 2000, due to lack of space, the Commission moved its Ottawa offices from 66 Slater Street to 270 Albert Street, 10th floor. For reasons of economy, from the beginning of 2000 the Commission has had an agreement with the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, whose offices are on the 11th floor of the same building, to share certain facilities: the library, the server room, the hearing and conference room and two small meeting rooms. The Grievance Board shares the costs of fittings, rent, furniture and equipment for the areas common to both organizations.
Commission personnel put a great deal of effort into making the new offices functional and harmonious, specifically the acquisition of furniture, computers and general equipment as well as in developing the management and security systems.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Whether by telephone, mail or e-mail, the Commission has received numerous requests from military personnel, military police and the general public for information on the Commission itself, how to submit a complaint, complaint eligibility or simply to voice their concerns.
The quality of client services is a constant priority of the Chairperson. Commission personnel have been made aware of the necessity to handle every request kindly and courteously and to treat those in difficulty with understanding. To this end, training sessions have been provided to employees, and the subject is on the agenda at staff meetings regularly.
Information provided by the staff is generally complemented by sending out a complaint form and background information to the person making the query. If the request does not fall within the Commission's jurisdiction, employees will still assist the person to address their concern to the applicable agency. Some people have taken the trouble to write to the Chairperson in order to express their satisfaction with the manner in which Commission personnel have helped them.
COMPLAINTS
Between January 1 and December 31, 2000, the Commission opened 83 various complaint files:
- 55 conduct complaints, as per section 250.18(1) of the Act;
- 1 interference complaint, as per section 250.19(1) of the Act;
- 20 complaints falling outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission, either because the events surrounding the complaint occurred prior to December 1, 1999, or because the actions under scrutiny were not made in the performance of policing duties or functions;
- 7 other files were opened following discussions with complainants who indicated that they intended to eventually submit a formal complaint.
Complaints not falling within the jurisdiction of the Commission prompted the transmission of an information kit to the complainants. According to the wishes of complainants, their documents were either returned to them or forwarded to the Provost Marshal or other appropriate agency.
Withdrawal of a Complaint
The Commission received two (2) requests from complainants to withdraw conduct complaints that had been submitted to the Provost Marshal.
Requests for Review
The Commission received two (2) requests for a review from complainants dissatisfied with the way in which the Provost Marshal handled their complaints.
In the first case, the complainant wondered why the investigator had not verified certain details mentioned in her complaint. The Chairperson felt that the Provost Marshal was best able to respond to the complainant's questions. The request for review was therefore referred to the Provost Marshal and the complainant advised to contact the Commission again if she was not satisfied with the response received from the Provost Marshal. Incidentally, the Provost Marshal's subsequent response was satisfactory to both the complainant and the Chairperson. The details in question had indeed been verified, but the Provost Marshal had not felt it necessary to make reference to this in the investigation summary sent to the complainant.
The second request for review, received in December 2000, is currently being examined.
Investigation of an Interference Complaint
In March 2000, the Commission received an interference complaint from a member of the military police about an officer who hampered his investigation. A Commission investigator was immediately asked by the Chairperson to verify the facts involved in the case.
On March 30, 2000, the Commission suspended its investigation to allow the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to proceed with an investigation it was conducting into the potentially criminal aspect of the complaint.
As of December 31, 2000, the investigations of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Commission were completed. The Chairperson was preparing her interim report to be sent to the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Judge Advocate General and the Provost Marshal.
Investigation in the Public Interest
The Chairperson used the special power entrusted to her by virtue of section 250.38(1) of the Act to investigate two conduct complaints submitted in June 2000. The facts involved in these complaints were as follows:
- At a press conference held on May 30, 2000, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service made public the results of an investigation it conducted following allegations that members of ex-Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford's troop had added naphtha gas to his coffee during his deployment in Croatia in 1993.
- At a press conference held on June 1, 2000, the Chief of the Defence Staff announced the establishment of a Special Review Group (SRG), chaired by Brigadier-General Gordon (Joe) Sharpe, to examine the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service report and other relevant materials and to make recommendations regarding leadership issues and administrative measures to be taken with respect to the members of the military involved.
- At a press conference held on June 20, 2000, the SRG made public the conclusions it had reached. It stated its disagreement with the reasons given by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service for not laying charges and said it was “
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Chief of the Defence Staff received (from the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service) inadequate and misleading advice with regard to the laying of criminal charges.
” The SRG report went on to state that the Chief of the Defence Staff misled the Canadian public about the possibility of criminal charges being laid by repeating the “inadequate and misleading advice of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service
” at the press conference of June 1, 2000. - Categorically rejecting any notion that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service misled the Chief of the Defence staff or the Canadian Public, the Provost Marshal wrote to the Commission Chairperson the same day to request that the Commission investigate these allegations.
- On June 29, 2000, ex-Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford submitted a related complaint.
The Chairperson decided that it was in the public interest for the Commission to hold a joint investigation into the two complaints. For the purposes of this investigation, the Chairperson and Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan S.C., part-time member, constituted the Commission.
As of December 31, 2000, the Commission's investigation had been completed and the Chairperson had submitted her interim report. The Chief of the Defence Staff had, in accordance with the Act, sent his notice of action to the Minister and the Chairperson, and the latter was in the process of preparing her final report in order to submit it at the beginning of January 2001.
OVERSIGHT OF THE CANADIAN FORCES PROVOST MARSHAL'S COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCESS
The Act contains a number of provisions allowing the Chairperson to attentively monitor every step in the handling of conduct complaints by the Provost Marshal and to intervene as required.
At the end of this first year of activity, the Chairperson can make the general observation that the majority of allegations of misconduct that led to formal complaints were not of a highly serious nature. Nevertheless, the Provost Marshal put a great deal of effort into handling all conduct complaints (55), regardless of the nature of the complaint or the seriousness of its allegations. At least two complaints could have been refused as soon as they were received due to their frivolous nature. In another case, an investigation was conducted despite the refusal of the complainant to cooperate with the investigator from the office of the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards. The investigation resulted in the conclusion that the police officer named in the complaint did not act in a professional manner.
In addition, as required by the Act, periodic updates on the progression of complaints were produced and forwarded, within the specified time limits, from the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards, to complainants, the subjects of the complaints and the Chairperson.
Finally, reports sent to complainants, the subjects of the complaints and the Chairperson at the end of investigations contained all the necessary explanations to support the conclusions of the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards.
During the year, the Chairperson and her operational staff met, on two occasions, with the Provost Marshal and the Deputy Provost Marshal, Professional Standards, to establish an effective communication channel, to harmonize certain perceptions and to discuss subjects of common interest. The Chairperson finds that these meetings are extremely beneficial and can be held without compromising the independence and objectivity of the Commission.
Also during the year, the Chairperson provided several observations to the Provost Marshal concerning complaints falling within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
On another subject, the Chairperson wishes to mention the speed with which the Provost Marshal responded to a request from the Commission. While the Commission investigator was conducting the investigation into the interference complaint, he asked the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigator who had investigated the same incident for a copy of his report. While the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigator had no formal objection to providing the report, as it was the first time he had received such a request, he referred it to the Provost Marshal, who immediately contacted the Commission Chairperson. The Provost Marshal handled the situation diligently by issuing a policy directive authorizing military police units to provide their investigation reports to Commission investigators on request. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to proceed according to the Access to Information Act.
Recommendations
The annual report provides the Chairperson with the opportunity to make recommendations, as required. For the Commission's first year of operation, the number of complaints studied (56), many of which have not yet been completed, is not sufficient to indicate trends that might support appropriate recommendations.
ACTIVITIES IN THE LEGAL DOMAIN
During the year 2000, the Commission's Legal Services unit hired a Senior Counsel, an Administrative Assistant, a Librarian, a Lawyer and a Student-at-Law.
Legal Services contributed to most of the work of the Commission as well as in establishing a library in collaboration with the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, which shares the facility. Legal Services also studied a number of provisions of the Act that lend themselves to various interpretations, in order to further clarify their scope. In addition, they assisted the Commission in investigating two complaints carried out in the public interest.
The Operations Branch conducted an in-depth analysis of Part IV of the Act as well as The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces in order to produce documents in lay terms and gain greater insight into the subject matter.
Specific legal research was necessary in order to define the scope of certain provisions of the Act and to explain and reconcile apparent differences between its English and French versions.
In addition, Legal Services examined questions relating to the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act.
In December 1999, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman presented a regulatory regime related to his mandate. The Commission Chairperson and Diane Laurin, Vice Chairperson and Interim Chairperson of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, jointly expressed their reservations on behalf of the organizations they represent. The respective organizations are affected by the ministerial direction of June 16, 1999 and the Ombudsman's proposed regulatory plan, as relates to the matter of subjecting the two organizations to the Ombudsman's powers of intervention and inquiry. This being said, the crucial role the Ombudsman plays in enhancing the well-being of Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces personnel is recognized. Nevertheless, this role should be performed outside of the specific areas of jurisdiction that the legislator has assigned to the Commission and the Board.
In some respects, the Ombudsman's proposed regulations would create a problem of overlap with the mandate of the Commission, the Grievance Board and the Ombudsman. The Chairperson defended her position in a joint memorandum, stating that the Commission and the Grievance Board were given exclusive jurisdiction to handle issues related to their respective mandates pursuant to the Act. Subsequent meetings were held with concerned parties.
PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
During the year 2000, the Chairperson took advantage of every opportunity to have the Commission better known and to explain its mandate, mission, vision and values. She would like to particularly thank the Chief and Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Provost Marshal and their respective personnel for having given her these opportunities.
Speeches
The Chairperson gave a number of speeches over the course of the year:
- before the Military Police Advisory Committee (Ottawa);
- at the Symposium for the Leadership of the Canadian Forces Military Police (Cornwall);
- before the Armed Forces Council (Ottawa);
- before the Canadian Forces G1 Working Group (Ottawa);
- at a training session organized by the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (Ottawa);
- at the Canadian Forces Base Commanders Forum (Ottawa);
- at the Area Provost Marshal Conference (Edmonton);
- before the Canadian Forces Naval Board (Quebec City).
Visits
At the end of July, the Chairperson travelled to Bosnia, where she visited military police detachments and held discussions with members of the military police.
In September, the Chairperson travelled to Western Canada, visiting bases in Winnipeg, Shilo, Edmonton and Dundurn. In each location she made presentations, met and held discussions with military police members and spoke with base commanders.
Associations
As part of her mandate, the Chairperson participated in the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE), of which she is a member, which was held in Winnipeg. She also spoke before the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals (CTAC), of which she is also a member, about the establishment of the Commission, its mandate and role.
Numerous members of the military police, particularly those in Bosnia, have expressed their appreciation for the interest shown in them by the Commission. For the Chairperson, these visits were excellent opportunities to become better informed on military police functions and their working environment. The police officers were provided an opportunity to voice their expectations and any uncertainties they might have had regarding the Commission. Though the Chairperson was able to reassure them on a number of points regarding the Commission, other concerns were reported to the Provost Marshal, while still others require further reflexion prior to becoming more involved or making them the subject of recommendations.
Outreach
As part of its objective to have the Commission better known and to promote its accessibility, the Commission continued to develop a strategic communications plan to identify its audiences and to communicate to that audience the appropriate messages. It also began the development of a Web site, which will provide public access to extensive information on the Commission. Background documents were also prepared for the information of complainants and the general public. Others are in the process of being prepared.