Watchdog says military police still resisting civilian oversight

The military police watchdog says resistance to civilian oversight in the Canadian Forces provost marshal’s office “worsened” last year.

The Military Police Complaints Commission released a report Tuesday accusing the provost marshal’s office or CFPM — which commands all military police in Canada — of “shutting down” complaints based on a “dubious” interpretation of the National Defence Act.

In its report, the watchdog said the provost marshal’s office has been failing to advise complainants of their right to have their cases reviewed by the complaints commission as required by law, and is routinely refusing to respond to complaints made in interference cases.

Interference cases come up when a military police member files a complaint alleging that a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or a senior official in the Department of National Defence has attempted to influence an investigation.

“These issues not only persisted but have worsened. In 2024, the [provost marshal] interpreted the National Defence Act in a way that avoids civilian independent oversight. The situation escalated from resistance to outright refusal to respect the oversight regime mandated by Parliament,” the report said.

It says the provost marshal is “shutting down complaints” and “hindering the civilian oversight of the military police.”

Tammy Tremblay, Military Police Complaints Commission chair, declined an interview request.

Office says recommendations ‘considered carefully’

Lt.-Cmdr. Melanie Aqiqi, public affairs officer at the provost marshal’s office, said that they “acknowledge the criticism” in the watchdog report and remain “fully committed” to the commission’s mandate.

“The CFPM acknowledges that the interpretation of this legislative framework is at times different than that of the [commission]. Most notably, as it relates to the disclosure of information,” Aqiqi said in an emailed response.

“All recommendations from the MPCC are considered carefully with a view to determining their merit, practicality and effectiveness to bring positive changes.”

The report accuses the provost marshal’s office of “terminating” complaints without an investigation when a criminal probe is launched.

The report said complaints are supposed to be paused pending the completion of a criminal investigation and any judicial proceedings. However, the report said that this year the provost marshal’s office began to “simply terminate” some complaints without investigating them.

Aqiqi denied this claim.

“Regarding ongoing criminal proceedings, this is never used as a tool to avoid complaint investigations. In some instances, a criminal investigation may be a more appropriate manner to address a complaint received under the act,” she said.

“Should this be the case, the military police require criminal proceedings to be concluded prior to proceeding.”

Report calls for further reform

The report calls for National Defence Act reform to ensure the commission has the ability to access “information necessary to investigate complaints.”

“Without this legislative reform, there is a risk that the barriers the MPCC faces in exercising its mandate continue to dilute the will of Parliament in establishing an oversight system for the military police,” the report said.

The report also says that individual members of the military police “respect and understand” the watchdog’s mandate and the problem of “refusal of civilian oversight” stems from senior leadership.

Aqiqi said that the provost marshal’s office remains committed to a “fair, transparent and independent process” to address public complaints.

Brig.-Gen. Vanessa Hanrahan took over command of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s office in December, replacing Maj.-Gen. Simon Trudeau, who had held the position for six-and-a-half years.