National Defence Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Décary, you have a very impressive resumé. Congratulations on your appointment.

You indicated that your commissioner's role is an independent one. Can you elaborate on why you believe it is very important that it be independent?

[Robert Décary]

The reason why I accepted a mandate such as this one is precisely the Commissioner's independence in the mandate he carries out. As I said earlier, I have administrative and budgetary independence. I hire the staff I want, I'm not subject to the rules of the public service with regard to hiring staff. So I have physical independence, which I consider extremely important.

But even more important, I have total freedom of action in the reviews I undertake. No one can obstruct me in any way. It would not even come to the CSE's mind to refuse the things I request, to refuse documents that I want to see or to refuse me permission to meet its employees whom I want to meet.

That helps reassure me—my team and me—that things are being done properly and in accordance with the act. That's what I think is the most important aspect from a professional standpoint, as Commissioner. I know that the reviews my team has conducted were done in an absolutely free manner and that the result must be free. Whether or not the government or the CSE agrees with the result, I just don't care.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I was interested in your comment that one of the reasons you took the role was because it was on a part-time basis. Has the workload taken it beyond being part-time? I don't know exactly how much time part-time is. Is it 20 hours a week?

[Robert Décary]

So far it's been a little beyond my expectations.

In practical terms, I was told that I would have to spend about two days a week over 40 weeks, the equivalent of some 80 days. That's all very relative; it depends on needs. Obviously, since I was appointed in June, I have had a lot of information sessions. I may have spent more time than I will spend in the coming months. There was a considerable backlog at the Office of the Commissioner of the CSE because there was no commissioner. So I had to examine reports that I myself had not prepared. For example, I signed this report, but I didn't prepare it.

So there are a lot of additional things to do, but I think I'll now be able to adopt a more regular pace, and it should take a few days a week. Clearly, I'm here, I'm available, and I'm available 100%, when the need is 100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Faille, do you have anything to add?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I may have a question.

You just answered part of the question. You may not have the answers. Two reports were submitted by Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Iacobucci.

Can you tell us a little about the progress made on implementing the recommendations? I know that a standing committee of the House of Commons has examined that and tabled a report.

[Robert Décary]

I believe you probably know a lot more than I do on that subject. All I know is what I read in the papers. To my knowledge, no official mechanism has yet been introduced to gather the views of the various monitoring agencies.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

That's because you say the Office of the Commissioner of the CSE is prepared to debate those questions.

[Robert Décary]

Yes, absolutely. I've just come back from a trip to France, at a time when France and Great Britain had just signed a security agreement. President Sarkozy said some words I found marvellous. He said the objective is prevention and the means harmonization. The French are very good at the punchy turn of phrase.

We are in Canada, and that's somewhat the meaning of the recommendations of Judges Iacobucci and O'Connor, as I understand them. They're about harmonization, about how we're going to harmonize both intelligence gathering efforts and efforts to monitor intelligence activities.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I suppose you'll eventually have to develop an action plan or timetable.

[Robert Décary]

In fact, as I said, I already have some ideas about that, but I will have to confirm that when I see the situation, but it's obvious that... Will the solution be a super-structure, a new bureaucracy? For the moment, in my mind, all solutions are possible. I think we're obviously headed toward a new form of harmonization of efforts.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

We're going to follow you in your thinking. Thank you.

[Robert Décary]

Thank you, madam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Ms. Faille.

Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Décary. On behalf of all committee members, I would like to wish you every success in your new challenge, Commissioner the Honourable Robert Décary. We have been happy to have you.

We will suspend proceedings for five minutes to allow the other witnesses time to settle in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We'll resume our proceedings.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will hear the study on the Military Police Complaints Commission.

We are honoured to have as a witness the Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission,

Mr. Glenn Stannard.

Mr. Stannard, thank you for being with us today. You have 10 minutes, and after that the members of the committee will be able to ask you questions.

You have the floor.

[Glenn Stannard, Chair, Military Police Complaints Commission]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon. I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear today.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you concerning my appointment as chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I am truly honoured to have been appointed the chair of the MPCC by the Governor in Council on May 14, 2010, and to have been a commission member since September 2007. Immediately prior to my May 2010 appointment as chair of the commission, I had served as acting chair, since December 11, 2009.

I understand that you have all been provided a copy of my CV. I intend to identify the role and function of the MPCC chair as well as the commission as a whole and to provide you with an overview of my background and experience.

The chair and other members of the commission are appointed pursuant to section 250.1 of the National Defence Act on either a full-time or part-time basis. Typically, the chair is a full-time position, and the other appointed members serve on a part-time basis. Currently, the commission has three members, including me. In addition to handling the complaints files personally, I decide on the delegation and assignment of work among the other members. As chair, I am also the commission's chief executive officer and responsible for the supervision and direction of its work and staff.

The MPCC is mandated by Parliament to provide an independent civilian oversight to Canadian military policing through the review and investigations of complaints related either to the conduct of military police members or to alleged interference in military police investigations. The MPCC provides the civilian oversight component of Canadian military policing through its role in the handling of military police conduct and interference complaints.

Most conduct complaints are first transferred for investigation and disposition to the head of the Canadian Forces Military Police, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. The MPCC monitors the provost marshal's treatment of complaints and subsequently conducts its own review or investigation at the request of a dissatisfied complainant. In the case of interference complaints, the MPCC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate.

Exceptionally, the chair may deem it to be in the public interest to initiate an investigation, with or without hearings, into a complaint, effectively bypassing or suspending the investigative obligations of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

The MPCC is now conducting a public interest hearing into a complaint about an alleged failure by certain military police members to investigate the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan to Afghan security forces in the face of an alleged risk of torture. As I am a panel member seized of this complaint, you will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the case outside the context of the hearing itself.

As both soldiers and law enforcement professionals, the military police fill an important and challenging role within the Canadian Forces. I am honoured to be involved in the important work of military police oversight.

Although we deal with allegations of misconduct, the MPCC is not a disciplinary body. Others in the Canadian Forces system have these responsibilities.

In my view, the complaints process established under part IV of the National Defence Act, in providing an external perspective on the resolution of complaints, is a means of encouraging continual improvement in the professionalism, integrity, and independence of military policing, and for ensuring confidence in our military police. After all, as I know from my own career experience, the success of the police ultimately depends on the confidence of the community it serves.

As to whether I qualify for the position of chair of the MPCC, that is for you honourable members and others to judge. In addition to my tenure as chair and commission member in recent years, I have had an extensive background in civilian policing at all levels. I have 37 years' experience with the Windsor Police Service in Ontario, with the last 9 years as chief of police, from 1999 to 2008. During my years in policing, I served in all ranks and divisions of our service. As you'll see from my CV, I have taken numerous advanced police training courses in a variety of fields in both Canada and the United States. I have two Bachelor of Arts degrees, in sociology and criminology, from the University of Windsor.

I have always sought to be active in my community, and in addition to being involved in a variety of charitable foundations and service organizations, I have been a member of associations of chiefs of police at the international, national, and provincial levels, and previously served as president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

I have maintained memberships and relationships with the federal and provincial chiefs' associations. I am also presently on the board of directors of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, CACOLE.

In recognition of my police work, I have been named an officer of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces and was also awarded the Queen's Jubilee award. Although I do not have legal training, I do have previous experience in the conduct of tribunal hearings, having served as a prosecutor and hearings officer at police disciplinary tribunals under the Ontario Police Services Act. In addition, I have had extensive experience with the criminal justice system, both as an investigator and as the officer in charge at all levels of the criminal investigative services.

I have ready access to professional legal advice from our MPCC legal counsel. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the MPCC has had only two public interest hearings to date. The vast majority of its cases are handled through investigations and reports without a hearing. The MPCC's findings and recommendations are not binding.

The commission is inquisitorial and investigative rather than adjudicative and adversarial in nature. We are, moreover, charged by Parliament, under the National Defence Act, section 250.14, to address our complaints as informally and expeditiously as possible.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stannard.

We will now give the floor to Mr. Malo, from the Bloc Québécois, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stannard, thank you for being with us this afternoon.

I understand that you have been at the Military Police Complaints Commission since September 2007. So it isn't new for you to sit on the Commission.

Can you tell us what mandates you have been given and how you have performed your work, first of all?

Let's go ahead with that question.

[Glenn Stannard]

Upon my commencement in September 2007, then chair Mr. Tinsley and I decided that I would not start my duties as a part-time member in a formal sense until I retired from the police service on February 29, 2008.

That was when I actually started. Certainly during that in-between period I was able to do a fair amount of research and gather information on the mandate of the organization, on what it was all about, and on what the duties were, and to do a significant amount of reading and understanding. I was forwarded many documents relative to past investigations and the types of activities, and when I started I was able to assist with investigations on a part-time basis.

My role as a part-time member was much different from my role as the acting chair starting in December 2009. At that time I was not involved in any of the investigations relative to the Afghanistan issues, the public interest hearings, or any of the development of reports or annual reports or anything to do with that. In fact, I was strictly assisting in investigations by responding and signing off for acceptance and doing the final report on the investigations.

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

With regard to all the powers conferred on the Commission to conduct investigations, do you believe that the current powers are the powers it should have in order to conduct all the required reviews in the best manner possible?

[Glenn Stannard]

The powers the commission has, including doing a normal investigation once we have received a complaint from a dissatisfied complainant, mean that we obviously oversee the complaints that the Canadian Forces provost marshal is handling. Once we have received a complaint from a dissatisfied complainant, we can make certain decisions in moving forward with an investigation, whether it be a public interest investigation or an investigation that would be done by our investigators, and then a commission member would deal with the potential recommendations and the results of it.

Certainly, the powers differ in the public interest hearings. We have the power of subpoena. There are some issues related to documentation and things of that sort that we are looking at through a five-year review, and there is potentially some additional work that can be done in those areas in terms of documentation and things like that.

But there are significant powers in doing an investigation. Obviously, the CF member who's being investigated doesn't have to talk to us. There's no compelling piece there for them to respond to us, but in almost all cases they do.

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

More specifically, have you been able to determine what the consequences would be if the possibility of conducting systemic studies were removed from the commission's mandate, as the government appears to want to do?

[Glenn Stannard]

Could you repeat that? I didn't quite get it all.

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

It's currently possible to conduct more systemic studies, to see what, in overall terms, comes from studying systems as a whole.

Do you think it is important for the Commission always to be able to conduct this type of study?