2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities

____________________________
The Honourable Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National Defence

Table of Contents

Chairperson’s Message

I am pleased to present the 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities of the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission). This Report sets out what the Commission will do over the next three years as it fulfills its role providing independent civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police. This includes: providing greater public accountability by the Military Police (MP) and the chain of command in relation to MP investigations; promoting and ensuring the highest standards of conduct of the MP in the performance of policing duties; and discouraging interference in any MP investigations.

Three priorities are reflected in the Report: two related to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Complaints Resolution Program and one related to improving governance in support of the Complaints Resolution Program. These priorities support the Commission’s strategic outcome which states: conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces.

The Commission’s operating environment is continuously challenging with diverse and complex conduct and interference complaints. Going forward, the Commission will be drafting the Fynes Public Interest Hearing (PIH) Interim Report, and ultimately the Final Report, with findings and recommendations. This PIH began on March 27, 2012, concluded on January 9, 2013, at which time the Commission heard final submissions. This PIH concerned complaints regarding Military Police investigations related to the March 2008 death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. The hearing process encompassed more than 12,000 pages of transcripts and almost 90 witnesses. It is expected that the process of preparing the Commission’s report will be a highly demanding and resource-intensive process.

The Commission will also continue to pursue proposals to amend the National Defence Act (NDA). Some of the proposals relate to the need for legislative improvement such as authorities to access relevant information and evidence in order to fully and credibly investigate complaints and thereby discharge the Commission’s mandate as Parliament envisioned and as the public rightly expects. In the future, the Commission will seek opportunities to pursue these proposals wherever possible.

In addition, the Commission will also be following the progress of Bill C-15 – Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act which received Second Reading in the House of Commons and was referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) on December 12, 2012. This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the NDA which includes the proposed authority for the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct specific MP investigations. In the Commission’s brief to the NDDN, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of this provision on retaining the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) independence from the chain of command in the conduct of individual law enforcement investigations. Further to an invitation from the NDDN, I appeared on February 11, 2013 to discuss the Bill.

During the planning period, the Commission will also continue to deliver its well-received Outreach Program to MP members, and to other communities regarding the Commission’s mission, mandate and complaints processes.

I would like to thank Commission staff for their exceptional professional contributions to effective Commission operations and look forward to their further contributions in the coming years. I look forward to the continued expertise and excellent support of Commission Members Roy Berlinquette, Hugh Muir and Steven Chabot. The Commission continues to work collaboratively with the CFPM, the Deputy Commander Canadian Forces Military Police Group/Professional Standards, other senior MP Officials, the MP community, and our partners and stakeholders.

_______________________
Glenn M. Stannard, O.O.M.
Chairperson

Section I: Organizational Overview

Raison d’être

The Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission) was established by the Government of Canada to provide civilian oversight of the Canadian Forces Military Police, effective December 1, 1999. This was achieved through an amendment to the National Defence Act (NDA) creating a new Part IV which sets out the mandate of 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 for greater public accountability by the military police and the chain of command in relation to military police investigations”.

Responsibilities

The Commission’s mandate is to review and investigate complaints concerning Military Police (MP) conduct and investigate allegations of interference in MP investigations. The Commission reports its findings and makes recommendations directly to the MP and Department of National Defence (DND) leadership. The Commission’s mission is to promote and ensure the highest standards of conduct of MP in the performance of policing duties and to discourage interference in any MP investigation.

The Commission fulfills its mandate and mission by exercising the following responsibilities:

A description of the conduct and interference complaints processes, as well as considerations associated with conducting public interest investigations and hearings, is contained within Section II of this Report entitled Program – Complaints Resolution.

The Commission is a micro-agency headquartered in Ottawa. It currently has 21 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and a program budget of $3.5M.

The Commission is one of eight distinct but related organizations in the National Defence Portfolio. While it reports to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Commission is both administratively and legally independent from DND and the Canadian Forces (CF). The Commission is not subject to direction from the MND in respect to its operational mandate.

The Commission is an independent Federal government institution as defined under Schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA). As an independent oversight agency, the Commission must operate at a distance and with a degree of autonomy from government including the DND and the CF. All members of the Commission are civilians and are independent of the DND and the CF in fulfilling their responsibilities and accountabilities in accordance with governing legislation, regulations and policies.

The Commission’s decisions, operations and administration must also be, and be seen to be, free from ministerial influence other than seeking the signature of the MND, as the Minister responsible, to table the Commission’s Reports on Plans and Priorities; Departmental Performance Reports; Annual Reports to Parliament; and other accountability documents such as Memoranda to Cabinet and Treasury Board Submissions.

Designated as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Commission, the Chairperson is accountable for all of the Commission’s activities and for the achievement of results. Based on the Terms and Conditions of employment for Full-Time Governor in Council Appointees, the Chairperson has been designated as CEO, statutory deputy head or “Deputy Head” as defined by the FAA and as designated through the Governor in Council (GIC).

As Deputy Head, the Chairperson is accountable to Parliament for fulfilling management responsibilities, including financial management. This includes accountability allocating resources to deliver Commission programs and services in compliance with governing legislation, regulations and policies; exercising authority delegated by the Public Service Commission for human resources; maintaining effective systems of internal controls; signing accounts in a manner that accurately reflects the financial position of the Commission and exercising any and all other duties prescribed by legislation, regulations or policies relating to the administration of the Commission.

In fulfilling its independent civilian oversight responsibilities, the Commission has a crucially important working relationship with the CFPM and the Deputy Commander Canadian Forces Military Police Group/ Professional Standards (DComd CF MP Gp/PS). On April 1, 2011, the CFPM assumed full command of all MP members who are directly involved in policing. The CFPM also assigns MP elements to other supported commanders under operational command.

The DComd CF MP Gp/PS manages public complaint and internal MP misconduct investigations and ensures adherence to the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct.

The CFPM is responsible for dealing with complaints about MP conduct in the first instance. The Commission has the authority to monitor the steps taken by the CFPM and to conduct its own reviews and investigations, as required. The Commission has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. The Commission’s recommendations for improvements contained in its Interim and Final Reports are not binding on the CF and the DND. However, they do provide the opportunity to further enhance transparency and accountability.

Fostering a mutually respectful working relationship between the Commission and the CFPM and DComd CF MP Gp/PS facilitates the conduct of complaint investigations and the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented.

Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture (PAA)

Strategic Outcome

Conduct complaints against the Military Police and interference complaints by the Military Police are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Forces.

Programs

Organizational Priorities

Organizational Priority 1
Priority Type Strategic Outcome and/or Program
Priority 1: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process. Ongoing Complaints Resolution
Description

Priority 1: Why is this a priority?

Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaints resolution process is fundamental to achieving the Commission’s strategic outcome which is that conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the DND and/or the CF.

Plans for meeting the priority 1:

Continued, Effective Collaboration: The Commission will continue to work with the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), the CFPM, the DComd CF MP Gp/PS and other senior MP staff, partners and stakeholders to foster an environment that supports the acceptance and implementation of recommendations.

Outreach: In order to promote a greater appreciation and understanding of its mandate and the complaints resolution process, the Commission will continue its Outreach Program at Canadian Forces bases and its presentations to participants at the Qualifying Level (QL) 5 and Military Police Officers (MPOC) training course at the Military Police Training Academy in Borden, Ontario. These base visits and other presentations allow stakeholders to gain a further appreciation of the Commission, how it operates and allows the Commission to further expand its knowledge of the many challenges faced by the MP.

Organizational Priority 2
Priority Type Strategic Outcome and/or Program
Priority 2: Resolution of complaints in a timelier manner and provision of meaningful recommendations. Ongoing Complaints Resolution
Description

Priority 2: Why is this a priority?

This is a priority because resolution of complaints in a timely manner and the provision of meaningful recommendations increase the likelihood that the specific and systematic issues identified for change will be agreed upon and the improvements recommended will be implemented. The changes made will improve the quality of military policing and contribute directly to maintaining the confidence and support of those served by the MP.

Plans for meeting the priority 2:

Refining the Planning and Conduct of Investigations: The Commission has no control over the complaints received or the resulting volume, complexity and size of the investigations that ensue. As a result, the Commission will continue to refine the planning and conduct of its investigations. Timely, well-completed investigations will result, where required, in meaningful recommendations for changes in MP conduct (including addressing systemic issues) that are accepted and implemented.

Organizational Priority 3
Priority Type Strategic Outcome and/or Program
Priority 3 : Improving Governance Ongoing Internal Services
Description

Priority 3: Why is this a priority?

Improving governance is a priority because it provides fundamental support to complaints resolution and to the achievement of the Commission’s strategic outcome.

Plans for meeting the Priority 3

Review and update of the Commission’s Management Accountability Frameworks (MAF):

The Commission has implemented several policy frameworks aligned with the MAF. The Commission continues to update these frameworks, when required and in some cases, annually, in addition to implementing required policies, directives and standards.

The Commission will undergo self-assessments through management reviews including all formal evaluations and audits to validate the frameworks and other instruments. For example, the Commission has improved business and program areas such as finance, contracts, human resources and assets/facilities as a result of these reviews, which demonstrates the Commission’s strong stewardship.

Risk Analysis

Operational Demands

The Commission manages an unpredictable and diverse portfolio of conduct and interference complaints involving complex and often unique issues. Investigating these complaints represents a significant workload for staff and for Commission Members, involving significant resources, intensive research and data gathering as well as detailed analyses of voluminous recorded and written evidence. Such activities impact the duration of investigations, resources and time required to prepare Interim and Final Reports, as well as the overall cost.

When investigations result in a decision to hold a public interest hearing (PIH), the process is even further complicated and costly, often involving the need to seek additional funding, as well as addressing detailed internal and external logistical issues.

The Commission will continue to follow its critical path in the conduct of complaints while remaining open to possible improvements and refinements to accommodate unique circumstances. It will also examine case management, administrative and other options, such as procedural efficiencies and technology applications, in order to ensure available resources continue to be optimized.

Financial Resources

The Commission has maintained the budget allocation of $3.5M since 2006-07.

The Commission has been able to cover the shortfalls associated with increased salaries due to collective agreements and an increased number of FTEs by using salary surplus from vacant positions.

Due to the increased operational demands and being fully staffed, the Commission has undergone a review of the organization’s ongoing reference levels in order to align it with our current structure and operational needs and has identified a significant operational shortfall that is no longer feasible for the Commission. The Commission is currently exploring options to address the financial shortfall.

Legislative Initiatives

In 2011, the MND appointed the Honourable Patrick J. Lesage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, to conduct the Second Independent Review of the NDA.

On June 23, 2011, the Commission submitted a comprehensive brief to the Independent Review Authority containing proposals in four areas to facilitate the Commission’s fulfillment of its role to provide independent civilian oversight of the CF MP. The following are the four areas highlighted:

On June 8, 2012, the report of former Justice LeSage was released in which some of the Commission’s proposals were adopted while other more vital proposals such as legislative improvements aimed at improving the Commission’s capacity to address complaints efficiently and credibly were not.

The Commission remains firmly convinced that it requires stronger legislative authorities of access to relevant information and evidence in order to fully and credibly investigate complaints and thereby discharge its mandate as Parliament envisioned and as the public rightly expects. As such, the Commission will continue to pursue these key proposals for legislative change.

Bill C-15 – Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act was tabled in the House of Commons on October 7, 2011, proposing a number of amendments to the NDA primarily related to the military justice system for the CF.

One provision of the Bill relates to the proposed authority of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct specific MP investigations. In a brief to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN), the Commission expressed serious concerns regarding the potential impact of this provision on retaining the CFPM’s independence from the chain of command in the conduct of individual law enforcement investigations.

The Bill has received Second Reading and was referred to Committee on December 12, 2012. Further to an invitation from the NDDN, the Chairperson discussed Bill C-15.

Human Resources

The Commission’s effectiveness depends to a great degree on its knowledge and stable workforce. However, like all micro-agencies, it is difficult to retain employees when the size and flatness of the organization impacts opportunities for advancement.

As a micro-agency, one Commission employee may oversee several programs and services. When the staffing of the position is lengthy, these delays result in increased costs to the Commission who relies on the use of consultants to oversee the duties of the vacant position. As well, the Commission must also transfer some, if not all duties thereby increasing workload onto other employees who are already fulfilling their existing responsibilities.

The Commission stresses effective human resource planning, anticipating potential staff turnover and developing staffing strategies to help ensure knowledge is retained through activities (such as knowledge transfer and employee learning plans) and that vacancies are appropriately filled as quickly as possible.

However, increased accountability and transparency standards have lengthened the staffing process and made it more difficult to staff positions in a timely manner.

The Commission’s Human Resource Framework – Plans and Strategies will be updated to align with the Common Human Resource Business Plan (CHRBP), which was endorsed as the government wide standard for managing human resources.

The Commission continues to explore other opportunities to even further strengthen its management of human resources and reinforce a positive and productive environment.

Collaboration

The Commission will continue to have discussions with the CFPM, the DComd CF MP Gp/PS and other senior MP staff in order to examine, address and resolve issues and to even further strengthen the complaints resolution process.

Recommendations contained in the Commission’s Interim and Final Reports of investigations are not binding on the CF and DND. However, they do provide the opportunity to further enhance transparency and accountability. The Commission will continue to foster productive working relationships in order to facilitate the conduct of investigations and increase the likelihood that recommendations will be accepted and implemented.

Mandatory Contracting/Procurement

Since the Core Control Audit, the Commission has re-aligned its policies and procedures to ensure that mandatory contracting and procurement requirements are followed including the increased documentation required by legislation, regulations and policies.

The Commission has provided and will continue to provide training to staff and advise them of any changes to procedures. It is essential to continue forward looking planning for any requirements for contracting of professional services or procurement of goods. This includes increased consultation with contracting authorities at Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) and increased documentation to meet policy requirements.

This has impacted the business operations in that; it has increased workload on staff to ensure these requirements meet all the policy requirements. To the greatest degree possible the Commission staff will address these mandatory requirements, although operational effectiveness will always be paramount for the Commission’s achievement of its mandate.

Planning Summary

Financial Resources (Planned Spending — $ millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates) 2013-14
Planned Spending
2013–14
Planned Spending
2014–15
Planned Spending
2015–16
5.6 5.6 3.5 3.5
Human Resources Full-Time Equivalent
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
21 21 21
Planning Summary Table
Strategic Outcome Program Actual Spending 2010–11 Actual Spending 2011–12 Forecast Spending 2012–13 Planned Spending Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
Conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the DND and/or CF. Complaints Resolution 2.3 2.7 4.0 4.2 2.1 2.1 Safe and Secure Canada
Sub–Total 2.3 2.7 4.0 4.2 2.1 2.1  
Planning Summary Table for Internal Services ($ millions)
Program Actual Spending
2010–11
Actual Spending
2011–12
Forecast pending
2012–13
Planned Spending
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
Internal Services 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4
Sub–Total 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4
Planning Summary Total ($ millions)
Strategic Outcome Programs, and Internal Services Actual Spending
2010–11
Actual Spending
2011–12
Forecast Spending
2012–13
Planned Spending
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
Total 4.4 4.9 5.7 5.6 3.5 3.5

Expenditure Profile

The Commission is a micro-agency. Operating out of Ottawa, it currently has 21 FTEs and a program budget of $3.5M allocated to its regular operations and has been operating at this level since fiscal year 2006-07.

In September 2011, the Commission sought and obtained approval to spend an additional $2.5M over a three year period to cover the cost of holding the Fynes PIH regarding MP investigations relating to the death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. The funding consisted of $1.3M in surplus funding from the Afghanistan PIH and $1M in additional funding.

During the Fynes PIH initial phases, the Commission had to readjust the PIH plan, update the budget plan to include unplanned and unanticipated activities, and readjust the hearing schedule itself due to delays in the start up. The main reason for the revised PIH plan was due to the additional two months of hearings combined with a two month pre-hearing preparation. These events were not foreseeable until well into the PIH. Furthermore, additional legal requirements which were not anticipated by any of the parties until recently have been identified. Even at this stage of the PIH, additional unplanned and unforeseen activities continue to surface. As a result, in September 2012, the Commission sought and secured approval for additional funding for the Fynes PIH in the amount of $3.3M over three years beginning in 2012-13. This funding is for the PIH only and is not part of the Commission’s A-base.

At the same time, the Commission sought and obtained additional funding of $1.7M over a three-year period, to support a conduct complaint review of a multi-jurisdictional investigation. The additional funding is for this purpose only and is not part of the Commission’s A-base.

The Commission’s revised reference level for 2013-14 is comprised of $3.5M ongoing, $1.8M for the Fynes PIH and $266K for a conduct review related to a multi-jurisdictional investigation.

Departmental Spending Trend

Line Graph - Departmental Spending Trend

Alternate format
Departmental Spending Trend ($ Millions)
  Actual Spending Forecast Spending Planned Spending
  Fiscal Year
2009-10
Fiscal Year
2010-11
Fiscal Year
2011-12
Fiscal Year
2012-13
Fiscal Year
2013-14
Fiscal Year
2014-15
Fiscal Year
2015-16
Total Spending 3.3 3.2 3.6 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5
Total Spending + Sunset Programs 4.7 4.4 4.9 5.7 5.6 3.5 3.5

Estimates by Vote

For information on our organizational appropriations, please see the 2013–14 Main Estimates publication.

Section II: Analysis of Programs by Strategic Outcome

Strategic Outcome

Strategic Outcome
Strategic Outcome: Conduct complaints against the MP and interference complaints by the MP are resolved in a fair and timely manner and recommendations made are implemented by the Department of National Defence (DND) and/or the Canadian Forces (CF).
Performance Indicators Targets
Recommendations resulting from investigations of conduct or interference complaints are accepted by the DND and/or the CF. 70% of the recommendations accepted.
Investigations of conduct or interference complaints are resolved within targeted timeframes as established by the Commission Chairperson. 70% resolved within adjusted timeframes established by the Commission Chairperson.
70% of individual members receive remedial measures and/or improvements were made to MP policies and practices pursuant to investigations or conduct or interference complaints. 70% of recommendations implemented.
Number of presentations given on the mandate, roles and responsibilities of the Commission. 10 presentations given.

Program: Complaints Resolution

This program aims to successfully resolve complaints about the conduct of the Military Police (MP) members as well as complaints of interference with MP investigations by overseeing and reviewing all complaints received. This program is necessary to help the MP be as effective and as professional as possible in their policing duties and functions.

Conduct Complaints

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) is responsible for dealing with complaints about MP conduct in the first instance. The Commission has the authority to monitor the steps taken by the CFPM as it responds to complaints and to intervene as required.

Conduct Complaints Process
Conduct Complaint Filed

Anyone may make a conduct complaint regarding the Military Police in the performance of their policing duties or functions, including those individuals not directly affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Such complaints are initially dealt with by the CFPM. Informal resolution is encouraged.

Complaint Investigated by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

As the CFPM investigates a complaint, the Commission monitors the process. At the conclusion of the investigation, the CFPM provides a copy of their final disposition to the Commission. The Commission may at any time during the CFPM investigation assume responsibility for the investigation or call a public interest hearing if it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so.

Request for Review

Complainants can request the Commission to review the complaint if they are not satisfied with the results of the CFPM’s investigation or disposition of the complaint.

Commission Reviews Complaint

At a minimum, this process involves a review of documentation related to the CFPM’s investigation. Most often, it also includes interviews with the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and witnesses, as well as reviews of relevant legislation and military and civilian police policies and procedures.

Commission Releases Interim Report

At the completion of the review, the Chairperson sends the Interim Report to the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the CFPM setting out the findings and recommendations regarding the complaints.

Notice of Action

The Notice of Action is the official response by the CF to the Interim Report and outlines what action, if any, has been or will be taken in response to the Commission’s recommendations.

Commission Releases Final Report

After considering the Notice of Action, the Commission issues a Final Report of findings 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) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a substantive and direct interest in the case.

Interference Complaints

The Commission has the exclusive authority to deal with interference complaints. Any member of the Military Police who conducts or supervises an investigation and believes a member of the CF or a senior official of the DND has interfered with or attempted to influence a MP investigation, may file a complaint with the Commission. This process recognizes the special situation of the MPs, who are both peace officers and members of the CF subject to military command.

Interference Complaints Process
Interference Complaint Filed

Members of the Military Police who conduct or supervise investigations may complain about interference in their investigations.

Commission Investigates

The Commission has sole jurisdiction to investigate interference complaints. A preliminary review is conducted to determine whether an investigation should be commenced, the scope of 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 of the Commission’s investigation, as well as its findings and recommendations. This report goes to the MND; the CDS, if the alleged interference was carried out by a member of the military or to the DM if the subject(s) of the complaint is a senior official of the DND; the JAG; and the CFPM.

Notice of Action

This official response to the Interim Report indicates the actions, if any, which have been or will be taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations.

Commission Releases Final Report

Taking into account the response in the Notice of Action, the Commission prepares a Final Report of its findings 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) of the complaint, as well as anyone who has satisfied the Commission that they have a direct and substantive interest in the case.

Conduct and Interference Complaints

The complaints resolution process results in Interim and Final Reports containing findings and recommendations which identify opportunities for individual or systemic improvements, where required. Conduct and interference complaint cases reviewed by the Commission represent the widest possible range and complexity involving legislative, policy, procedural, training, supervision and other issues.

Recommendations, when implemented, are designed to improve the quality of policing which, in turn, will contribute to maintaining the confidence and support of those the Military Police serve.

Public Interest Investigations and Hearings

At any time when it is in the public interest, the Chairperson may initiate an investigation into a complaint about military police conduct or interference in a police investigation. If warranted, the Chairperson may decide to hold a public interest hearing. In exercising this statutory discretion, the Chairperson considers a number of factors including, among others:

Financial Resources ($ millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates)
2013-14
Planned Spending
2013–14
Planned Spending
2014–15
Planned Spending
2015–16
4.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalent)
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
8 8 8
Program
Program
Expected Results
Performance Indicators Targets
Recommendations resulting from investigations of conduct or interference complaints are accepted by the DND and/or the CF. % of the recommendations accepted. 70%
Investigations of conduct or interference complaints are resolved within targeted timeframe as established by the Commission Chairperson. % resolved within adjusted timeframes established by the Commission Chairperson. 70%
70% of individual members receive remedial measures and/or improvements were made to MP policies and practices pursuant to investigations or conduct or interference complaints. % of recommendations implemented. 70%
Number of presentations given on the mandate, roles and responsibilities of the Commission. Number of presentations given. 10

Planning Highlights

In order to achieve the intended results of the Complaints Resolution Program, the following planning highlights apply:

Program: Internal Services

Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of the Commission. These groups are: Management and Oversight Services; Communications Services; Legal Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management (IM) Services; Information Technology (IT) Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; Acquisition Services; and Travel and Other Administrative Services. Internal Services include only those activities and resources that apply across the Commission and not to those provided specifically to a program.

Through its Internal Services, the Commission contributes to the following target areas of Theme IV (Shrinking the Environmental Footprint – Beginning with Government) of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS): green procurement, e-waste, managed print, paper consumption, and green meetings.

Financial Resources ($ millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates)
2013-14
Planned Spending
2013–14
Planned Spending
2014–15
Planned Spending
2015–16
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalent)
2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
13 13 13
Program
Program
Expected Results
Performance Indicators Targets
Conduct Management Reviews Management Reviews 2 per year
Conduct a series of reviews of the Commission’s Accountability Framework to ensure continued alignment with any new legislative, regulatory and central agency policy requirements. 2 reviews undertaken 2 per year

Planning Highlights

In order to fully support the Commission’s Complaints Resolution Program and improve governance, the following planning highlights apply:

Section III: Supplementary Information

Financial Highlights

Future-Oriented Condensed Statement of Operations and Departmental Net Financial Position
For the Year (ended March 31)
($ millions)
  $ Change Forecast
2013-14
Estimated Results
2012-13
Total expenses (.06) 5.84 5.90
Total revenues      
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers (.04) 5.84 5.90
Departmental net financial position .048 (.242) (.290)
Future-Oriented Condensed Statement of Financial Position
For the Year (ended March 31)
($ millions)
  $ Change Forecast
2013-14
Estimated Results
2012-13
Total net liabilities .41 .737 .696
Total net financial assets .15 .783 .768
Departmental net debt .26 (.046) (.072)
Total non-financial assets (.022) .196 .218
Departmental net financial position .048 (.242) (.290)

Future-Oriented Financial Statements

http://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/info/pubs/pubs-eng.aspx#ffs

List of Supplementary Information Tables

The Commission does not have Supplementary Information Tables.

Tax Expenditures and Evaluation Report

The tax system can be used to achieve public policy objectives through the application of special measures such as low tax rates, exemptions, deductions, deferrals and credits. The Department of Finance publishes cost estimates and projections for these measures annually in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication. The tax measures presented in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Section IV: Other Items of Interest

Organizational ChartFootnote 1

Organizational Structure of the Military Police Complaints Commission

Alternate format
  • Chair
    • Commission Members
    • Assistant to the Chairperson
    • General Counsel (GC)
      • Registrar
        • Paralegal/Registry Officer
        • Administrative Assistant to the GC/Registry Officer
      • Senior Legal Counsel
        • Articling Student
      • Legal Counsel
      • Junior Legal Counsel
      • Investigator(s)
    • Chief of Staff (CoS)
      • Administrative Assistant to the CoS
      • Senior Planning and Administration Officer
        • Administrative Services Officer
        • Administrative Services Coordinator
        • Receptionist
        • Student
      • Communications Officer
      • IT Specialist
        • IT Officer
      • Records & Information Management Officer
      • Chief, Financial Services
        • Accounting and Procurement Officer
Date modified: