Watchdog agency accuses chief of military police of blocking investigations

The country's military police watchdog has accused the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) of obstructing its independent reviews of complaints.

In the agency's annual report, tabled in Parliament this week, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission Tammy Tremblay unloaded a series of complaints. She said the panel had to go to Federal Court in some cases to force disclosure of information it needed to complete its investigations and reviews.

Tremblay described the situation as unacceptable and called it "an erosion of the MPCC's ability to exercise civilian oversight of the military police."

"The CFPM has, at times, refused to disclose information to which the MPCC is legally entitled and that it requires to fulfill its legislative mandate," Tremblay wrote in the annual report.

She called on the federal government to amend the National Defence Act to compel disclosure.

"Independent oversight of law enforcement is crucial to police legitimacy and effectiveness; one cannot exist without the other," Tremblay wrote.

Her scathing assessment comes as the House of Commons defence committee reviews transparency at the Department of National Defence.

The committee has held a series of hearings on the issue of secrecy and the perceived lack of public disclosure by the defence department. It has heard testimony from whistleblowers and senior members of government and the military, including the military's judge advocate general.

In his testimony before the committee on Feb. 12, 2024, Defence Minister Bill Blair singled out the watchdog agency, among others, as crucial to institutional accountability.

"The commission reviews and investigates complaints concerning military police conduct and investigates allegations of interference in military police investigations," Blair testified.

"Each of these organizations comprises dedicated, hard-working officials committed to keeping our institutions accountable. It's critical that no interference from the government or senior leadership occur in these investigations.

On Friday, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal responded to the accusations with a carefully worded statement.

"The CFPM fully supports the mandate of the MPCC as a civilian review body, within the parameters of the legislative framework articulated in Part IV of the [National Defence Act]," said Brig.-Gen Simon Trudeau in the statement, which did not elaborate on or address the specifics of the commission's concerns.

Duty to disclose

His reference to a specific portion of the legislation, which governs all things defence, including the MPCC, relates to what Tremblay said is a new interpretation of the law.

"After years of providing disclosure to the MPCC in public interest investigations, the CFPM now considers that he has no legal duty to disclose relevant information to the MPCC in such cases, citing that the National Defence Act contains no express provision requiring him to do so," Tremblay wrote.

She also said the resistance to the commission's oversight has gone beyond withholding information. She said that when it has released information, the office of the provost marshal subjects the documents to "excessive redaction, preventing the MPCC from having full disclosure of the evidence it requires to fulfil its mandate."

In some cases, she said, the provost marshal has only provided part of the material requested by the agency.