Navigation Links
Annual Report 2006
Monitoring and Investigations
In 2006, the Commission monitored the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's investigation of 35 complaints about military police conduct, and the number of investigations by the Commission increased by 100 percent over the previous year. In addition, the Commission held the first public hearing in its history, and will issue a report on its findings and recommendations early in 2007.
Monitoring power…
“Clearly, the final say with respect to what information the review mechanism can access cannot lie with the entity being reviewed.
”
The Hon. Dennis O'Connor
Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar
| ACTIVITY | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct Complaints Monitored | 34 | 46 | 52 | 35 | 167 |
| Interference Complaints received | ø | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Requests for Review | 2 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 24 |
| Public Interest Investigations/ Hearings Commenced |
ø | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Files | 36 | 58 | 59 | 49 | 202 |
| Interim Reports | 4 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 23 |
| Final Reports | 5 | 2 | 12 | 11 | 30 |
| Findings | 207 | 131 | 243 | 63* | 644 |
| Recommendations | 46 | 36 | 42 | 20* | 144 |
| Percentage of recommendations accepted | 90% | 33% | 67% | 100% |
* The smaller number of findings and recommendations in 2006 reflects the new approach to reports, in which findings and recommendations are consolidated where possible to facilitate the response by the CF authorities.
Investigations were opened into nine requests for review of the Provost Marshal's handling of conduct complaints, three public interest investigations were in progress in 2006, and the Commission dealt with three complaints of interference.
In 2006, all the Commission's findings and recommendations arising from its investigations were accepted by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal or the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Better investigations, better processes
Conducting reviews and investigations of complaints is an exacting and often complex undertaking. To maintain confidence in the military police complaints process, and to ensure fairness and transparency, the Commission's investigations must be, and must be seen to be, of the highest quality. Fairness demands that the Commission complete its investigations and report its findings without undue delays, and it must therefore ensure that the limited human and financial resources available to it are deployed as efficiently as possible.
In 2006, the Commission adopted a new service standard for completion of its reviews, reducing the target time to complete a review or investigation from the previous standard of eight months down to five-and-one-half months. As part of this initiative, a larger team of contract investigators was assembled and this has helped to ensure sufficient resources are available on short notice to meet the variable demand for these services.
To ensure its investigations continue to be of the highest quality, the Commission assigns both a lead and an assisting investigator to each case. This is recognized as a best practice in terms of assuring confidence in the results of an investigation. Adding a second investigator often means an investigation can be completed in a shorter period of time as well.
The Commission expects to gain further efficiencies from the adoption of new standardized practices for investigations, ensuring each step in the process builds on the previous step.
The Commission also invested in new equipment and technology for investigators, allowing them off-site access to the Commission's secure network. Adding the capacity for secure transmission of confidential data means investigators are more efficient.
Commission launches innovative approach to reporting on reviews and investigations
The National Defence Act states that the Commission is to deal with complaints “as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.
” To further expedite the handling of complaints, in cases where the Commission's investigation does not produce any findings or recommendations that require a response from the Provost Marshal or the Chief of the Defence Staff, it combines the Interim and Final reports into a Concluding report to which the receiving authorities need not reply.
