National Defence Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Glenn Stannard]

Our issues are not necessarily about studies. When our investigations are done and recommendations are made, some of them are very specific. They're not necessarily about studies. They could be specific recommendations about training; they could be about education; they could be about a variety of things. So it's not necessarily about our conducting a study. We're taking a look at the facts of an investigation, seeing if there are any problems with it and if the CF member has breached some mechanisms along the way. Then we make recommendations.

I can tell you that over the past four years, at least, 100% of the recommendations made within the investigative reports have been accepted by the Canadian Forces provost marshal. From that point of view, we then have a mechanism to follow up, because one of the recommendations may be an adjustment to policy or an issue with a change in policy and how you handle securing the mental health of individuals and items like that. We will follow those up to determine whether or not necessary changes have been made to the policies. But 100% of the recommendations in recent years have been accepted.

The ongoing liaison between the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the deputy provost marshal of professional standards is a regular thing. It's ongoing, so there's a constant review of files to ensure that things that are supposed to be happening are happening. It's a two-way street, and that's good.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Stannard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci. Thank you.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, sir, to our committee.

I note that in your introductory remarks you suggested that you would leave your qualifications to us. I don't know if you were referring to this or not, but I remember that when the question of your predecessor not being reappointed arose and that you were potentially to be appointed as chair, there was some public discussion about the fact that your commission was being inundated with a large number of extremely complex legal matters, courtesy of the Department of Justice challenging many matters.

Would you care to comment on how you are in a position to effectively deal with these questions? Don't get me wrong. I happen to be a lawyer, but I don't think lawyers are the be-all and end-all. But I wonder what comments you would have on the situation you find yourself in.

[Glenn Stannard]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I won't comment specifically on the current public interest hearing, but I will comment on the issues that centre around the issue of legal expertise, if I may.

The way these commissions, and in particular ours, are structured, and this is public information--if you came into our hearing room, you would see it--is that the commission counsel is really my counsel, for the purposes of this public interest hearing. There are a number of lawyers on that council. There are four or five, the lead being Mr. Ron Lunau. They provide and lead the evidence in a public interest hearing. It could be this one or it could be a different hearing. They lead the evidence.

Backing up the four on the commission council.... Whether I were a lawyer or not, I would be seeking my own general counsel's advice that may be required on issues. The Military Police Complaints Commission is blessed to have a very experienced general counsel, along with other counsel.

Whether or not I were a practising lawyer or a sitting lawyer, as an individual I would be seeking the advice of those individuals. And that I do. I am blessed with that kind of expertise around me, both in the commission room and outside, along with my own personal experience in terms of operating in and around a tribunal setting or a courtroom.

It's not us or even our counsel who appear before the Federal Court. When a Federal Court application is made, whether somebody has a lawyer or not, we hire independent federal counsel to appear before the Federal Court. I wouldn't attend, even if I were a lawyer.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I realize that you're not acting on behalf of the commission when matters go before the Federal Court or other bodies. I'm thinking more in terms of your sitting at the head of the table when these high-paid fancy lawyers are making.... In my experience, lawyers can certainly argue about anything and make points that are the most indefensible and argue them with the greatest level of confidence you could imagine. A judge with experience could just as quickly dismiss them.

I just wonder if you feel satisfied operating in that circumstance. Are you satisfied that you have sufficient advice from commission counsel and from your own counsel in terms of handling these situations?

[Glenn Stannard]

I would say two things. I'm satisfied that I have more than sufficient advice from counsel, both counsel in the room and our counsel outside. In addition, I'm not intimidated, in any fashion, whether it be through the Attorney General's lawyer or the complainant's lawyer or any other lawyer who is going to appear. I am satisfied and confident in my ability to handle the courtroom.

If I do run into a situation on an objection that I would not be clear about, and one or two times.... We've heard testimony now from more than 20-odd witnesses, and I have thousands of pages of transcripts. I can simply take a break and ask that question, rather than make a rash decision not based on factual knowledge. And that's what I would do.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, sir.

That's the very phrase I wanted to hear, and I thank you for that.

I don't have any further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

I will give the floor to Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is, through the chair, to you, Mr. Stannard.

First of all, it is a pretty impressive resumé. Congratulations on your appointment. It looks as though you're the man to fill the job.

[Glenn Stannard]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I tell my staff that. I have some of them here, and I tell them that quite often.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It sounds as though there is a little reinforcement there for you.

I noticed in part of your opening remarks that you talked about your independence. I wonder if you could just sort of elaborate on that a little bit for us, in terms of your independence and how you operate.

[Glenn Stannard]

Certainly, we operate under part IV of the National Defence Act, and everything comes out of there.

In terms of independence, even from my own point of view, I can state that from the time I've taken the chair--and I can't comment prior to that--never have I or any of my staff been given any kind of direction, to my knowledge, that we should or shouldn't do anything. Decisions around the public interest hearing were ours.

We take a look at our mandate, our missions, who the complainants are, and make the necessary decisions. Never have we been, to my knowledge, and during my tenure.... When I say independence, it's probably the best example of independence that I've had in my career, in terms of when I think back to my police services board. I wouldn't think of my being independent from them as chief of police, but in this particular position, we clearly are able to operate within the framework of the National Defence Act without any interference. We look forward to discussions with the Canadian Forces provost marshal on a regular basis.

It is encouraging to be able to come to work and know you're not going to get the phone call and have any interference whatsoever. I can say this is the way it operates.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm glad to hear that. I think it's very important to have that independence. I'm assuming your staff only take direction from you.

[Glenn Stannard]

Yes, and sometimes I listen to them a lot and take direction from them, because the staff there is very experienced and has been through many investigations and a lot of those experiences. I can certainly bring my experience and my demeanour to the office, so we can get the job done that has to be done, whether it be inside or outside the hearing room.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It sounds as if you and your staff have a very collaborative organization.

In terms of some of the investigations, if you are investigating a case and find it's baseless, what steps do you take from there?

[Glenn Stannard]

Generally, if it's a baseless investigation, chances are it's not going to come to us, unless the complainant is going to make that complaint. Many investigations go to the Canadian Forces provost marshal, and through their dealings, whether it be with the officers or with the complainants, they will address many of the complaints and we won't see them. We'll monitor them, but we may not get them for the purposes of an “investigation”. Seldom do we have an investigation I would call frivolous and vexatious. I haven't had one since I've been there, and I suspect that over the years they may have had a couple, but they would have to deal with it in that fashion.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

You did talk in terms of the follow-up on individuals, that you made recommendations to the provost marshal. Could you let us know what other actions you may have had to take in terms of situations where you made recommendations?

[Glenn Stannard]

After the recommendations are made, a report would go to the Canadian Forces provost marshal; they would respond that they have accepted the recommendations. I'll take that in the affirmative, that they've accepted those recommendations. Maybe we've made two or three. One might be around the issue of training, the handling of mentally ill persons. Another might be around the issue of how to treat evidence. One of the new issues is when they have in-car cameras and things like that, how to handle those kinds of documentation for safekeeping.

If they accept those recommendations, the ongoing dialogue would be with us in the future and the regular meetings we have with the Canadian Forces provost marshal to discuss recommendations. If it's a policy issue, we would then follow it up with them, but generally, if they've accepted that recommendation that maybe they're going to speak to the officer on additional training, we accept that and we don't get a report back, or we don't ask for a signed-off document. We have to accept from the Canadian Forces provost marshal that the job will be done.

We do get involved in terms of looking to see if policies have been changed so we know that for our future.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Have you had many cases where you've had to follow up on a policy?

[Glenn Stannard]

Sure we have. I would say there have been a couple of policy issues. Just this week, our general counsel met with Colonel Grubb. They discussed a variety of issues. I have not discussed issues with Colonel Grubb outside of the hearing. I'm staying away until we finish the hearing, so that there are no issues of.... I try to keep that independence while I'm chairing the hearing.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Are there any issues that you have in terms of those complaints that you haven't been able to resolve?

[Glenn Stannard]

It's not an issue with our resolving the complaint. The recommendations have all been accepted. I'm not sure that every military police officer is happy with the recommendations, but they have been accepted and acknowledged. So we move on. Certainly, you learn a little bit with each investigation, and our investigators learn a little bit with each investigation. As that goes on, we're quite satisfied with the processes between us and the provost marshal's office.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

I will give the floor to Mr. Boughen.