# MP struggle to enforce mental health laws



## jollyjacktar (27 Jul 2017)

Interesting article.  And, I'm floored to see who's the CFPM now, I remember him waaaay back when at Shearwater.  Getting old....



> Military cops struggle to enforce mental health laws
> 
> MPs had to call local officers for help 10 times over 18 months in Western Canada
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (27 Jul 2017)

Definitely a huge issue.

Interestingly, this is not an issue that's unique to the MPs. Ontario, I think through sheer oversight, does not include RCMP as 'police officers' for purposes of provincial statutes. While most RCMP in Ontario are not working in a uniformed capacity and won't have to worry about this, it's actually a huge issue for the federal protective policing in Ottawa, both on and off Parliament Hill.

A lot of what we think of as 'on the streets' police work is provincial. Highway traffic act. Mental health act. Liquor act. Trespass act, etc. When the public sees a car that says 'police', they expect the people in that car to act to preserve public safety and peace. Also, the 'police' designation confers certain protections; e.g., RCMP in Ontario have no statutory protection if they're driving with lights and sirens on to an emergency, to back up a partner, etc- if something goes wrong, they're under a bus with no top cover. There are other problems I won't go into.

The solution in Ottawa has been to run provincial statutes courses for RCMP and appoint those who complete it as special constables with Ottawa Police Service in order to grant them authorities under Mental Health Act, Highway Traffic Act, Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, Liquor Act, and Trespass Act. So far it's working pretty well, but it's an awkward solution, and those powers end at the city limits of Ottawa. Interestingly, the same protective unit also works on the Quebec side, which DOES recognize them as police. So you have federal police officers writing provincial offence tickets in two adjoining provinces. Bit of an unusual circumstance.

MHA authorities for MPs is, in my opinion, an absolute must. Mental health calls are totally bread and butter for police. Very routine. But sometimes they can go quite badly, and sometimes someone is in profound crisis, their life or the life of someone else is in danger, and they refuse to consent to help. In such cases you absolutely need statutory authority to apprehend and bring them to a doctor. I've seen plenty of lives saved by this. Is astonishes (though in retrospect shouldn't) me that there are jurisdictions where the MPs do not have that ability.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this is not an issue that's unique to the MPs. Ontario, I think through sheer oversight, does not include RCMP as 'police officers' for purposes of provincial statutes.



See also,

February 07, 2017
Policing Reform in Ontario 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/125141.0;nowap
OP: "Saw this today, and immediately I wondered if it meant the beginning of recognition for MP's in Ontario."


----------



## Habs (27 Jul 2017)

Luckily I work in a province where we can enforce most, if not all provincial legislation.  There have been numerous times I have arrested someone for mental health.  Not having this ability and having to rely on another police force is just absurd.  Can't imagine how the other dets are doing it.


----------



## trooper142 (27 Jul 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> Luckily I work in a province where we can enforce most, if not all provincial legislation.  There have been numerous times I have arrested someone for mental health.  Not having this ability and having to rely on another police force is just absurd.  Can't imagine how the other dets are doing it.



You and I both know that's not true!

The new directive that came down in May made it pretty clear we can not enforce provincial legislation, because we were not specifically named in that legislation!

If you are operating outside this directive, you run the risk of being found to have been disobeying lawful commands given by the Provost Marshal


----------



## Habs (27 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> You and I both know that's not true!
> 
> The new directive that came down in May made it pretty clear we can not enforce provincial legislation, because we were not specifically named in that legislation!
> 
> If you are operating outside this directive, you run the risk of being found to have been disobeying lawful commands given by the Provost Marshal



First I've heard of this "directive."


----------



## trooper142 (27 Jul 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> First I've heard of this "directive."



What province do you work in?

Because it's nation wide, given to all MPs

We can't operate off jurisdiction (not new) .
What was new was that we are not legally required to intervene, but if we do, we are not protected whatsoever, even if we acted in good faith and in the best interest of the community!(think guy getting stabbed) 

The thing that changed the most was our inability to enforce things like the mental health act and the motor vehicle act. We were enforcing those Acts until this directive.

Now there is a ton of confusion as to whether we can administer provincial sanctions on things like impaired cases.

Huge limbo now


Frankly , the military has to decide what they want from MPs. We either need all the legislative power and protections of police to do our jobs, or they need to drastically change what they expect from us. They can't have it both ways, we can't operate in limbo!

The clear solution would be a Military police act, similar to the RCMP act, that would allow us to operate in the provinces we are posted in.

The opponents who think given us the authority we need would just give MPs a carte blanche to police in citiea, is unfounded and absolutely obsurd. You don't see RCMP regularly operating inside a city that has a city police service, it's silly to suggest the same would happen with MPs


----------



## Habs (27 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> What province do you work in?
> 
> *Not sharing my location on a public internet site, but I think you can narrow it down from what I said.*
> 
> ...


----------



## RCDtpr (27 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> What province do you work in?
> 
> Because it's nation wide, given to all MPs
> 
> ...



Group orders are not law.

From what I understand the only province to have a real big change was Alberta.  In Ontario the way around was simple....you detain the person for their safety and keep them detained until the local police sign a piece of paper to make it official.

Not sure what all the fuss is about?


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2017)

Adding for reference to the discussion.

General protocols for escort and transport of persons detained for mental health reasons
http://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/01/1400/3700/2008-18/part6-eng.aspx

"MP members have no authority to enforce the Ontario MHA"


----------



## brihard (28 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> The clear solution would be a Military police act, similar to the RCMP act, that would allow us to operate in the provinces we are posted in.



That's not how it works for provincial offences. The RCMP act doesn't give that authority. The authority of an RCMP officer working in a province to enforce provincial statutes comes from that province's own laws. The RCMP act gives RCMP the pwoer to enforce all _federal_ laws throughout Canada- e.g., a Mountie in Ontario has a common law authority to pull someone over if they're a danger to the public (R. v. Seguin, ONCJ), and can pursue a criminal investigation, e.g. for impaired driving. But there's no authority under provincial law for RCMP to write traffic tickets off federal property. It's just that Ontario is, so far as I'ma ware, the only province that screwed this up. The workaround, as I mentioned earlier, is that a bunch of RCMP in Ottawa have been given special constable status that gives limits provincial authority under five and only five acts. Interestingly, prior to the Special Cosntable thing, the issue of the provincial suspensions and impounds for impaired under the ONHTA never got challenged that I'm aware of, however RCMP members have definitely been issuing suspensions and impounds for those who blow over 80 in the course of a lawfully commenced impaired investigation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged...

I was doing some digging yesterday. In Alberta it appears the solution for MPs would be for the 'employer' (CAF) to request to the appropriate provincial ministry for MPs to be desginated as 'peace officers' under the Alberta Peace Officers Act. The minister has the power to approve that without a legislative change.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was doing some digging yesterday. In Alberta it appears the solution for MPs would be for the 'employer' (CAF) to request to the appropriate provincial ministry for MPs to be desginated as 'peace officers' under the Alberta Peace Officers Act. The minister has the power to approve that without a legislative change.



That's ridiculous.  Where's the lengthy, pointless meetings?  Where's the whiteboards and post-it notes?  Where's the endless TD?  You can't just propose a simple, common-sense solution!


----------



## Inspir (28 Jul 2017)

Back in early 2000's I believe that the Area Provost Marshal had MP's appointed as Provincial Special Constables under the old Alberta Special Constables Act, atleast in Edmonton anyway. This allowed MP's to enforce certain provincial legislation on base. I guess this wasn't done through proper channels and when the CF Provost Marshal found out she had all these appointments pulled. I've been told this was done because of the branches reluctance to have to answer or have their members actions reviewed by an external agency (ie. Alberta Solicitor General, Law Enforcement Review Board). 

The new and current Peace Officer Act has mechanisms in place to have external Peace Officer appointed as Provinial Peace Officer, but after reading through it appears MP's would not qualify as they have a permanent presence in Alberta. And if they did it goes back to the same problem of external review by a provincial authority.


----------



## trooper142 (28 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's ridiculous.  Where's the lengthy, pointless meetings?  Where's the whiteboards and post-it notes?  Where's the endless TD?  You can't just propose a simple, common-sense solution!



Dapaterson!

Excellent find, I wonder if this approach could be used in all provinces?

Do you happen to have a reference? 

Perhaps those in the lower ranks who are, on a frequent basis, dealing with this issue could perhaps start to propose solutions! 

The simple fact is, as of right now, the Provost Marshall has directed we can no enforce provincial legislation on our property; regardless of what some may think, if you decide to enforce provisions of the mental health act of your province, you can and likely will be charge, CRB...not to mention the civil liability for the Charter breaches of unlawful detainment under section 10 which reads:

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

A detainment under a provincial mental health act is an illegal detainment right now because MPs do not have the legislative authority.


There was a bit there where they even said we couldn't enforce the Highway traffic act, even though 6(1) of the GPTR bridges to the relevant provincial motor vehicle legislation! They backtracked quickly on that once they realized we wouldn't be able to enforce anything.

I digress, this will be an ongoing fight for the foreseeable future, likely not solved until the next Provost Marshal is announced, or someone kills themselves, that could have been prevented.


----------



## brihard (28 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> There was a bit there where they even said we couldn't enforce the Highway traffic act, even though 6(1) of the GPTR bridges to the relevant provincial motor vehicle legislation! They backtracked quickly on that once they realized we wouldn't be able to enforce anything.



You don't need HTA authority to enforce traffic provisions of GPTR. GPTR through a catchall uses HTA provisions to define offences ('bridges' as you put it), not to draw authority for charging. You can have authority under the GPTR and not under the HTA, as long as you're charging the offence under GPTR. Same thing with RCMP in OTtawa under both GPTR and National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations. The actual substantive offense charged is still the GPTR offense, with the pursuant HTA offense simply noted to define the illegal act. You could be following a driver who is visibly talking on a cell phone on municipal streets, and have no authority to act. The instant they cross onto DND property, nail them under GPTR. But I don't buy your characterization that they were going to remove ability to enforce HTA. That's not the military's call, that entirely the province's call off federal property, and they don't need to ask the military. Military _orders or policy_ may preclude you from enforcing a law, but that does not mean the _law itself_ doesn't let you do so. In this case I suspect that there simply is no provision for MPs in Alberta to enforce the HTA. There is merely the 'pursuant to' interaction between the GPTR and the HTA.


----------



## trooper142 (28 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You don't need HTA authority to enforce traffic provisions of GPTR. GPTR through a catchall uses HTA provisions to define offences ('bridges' as you put it), not to draw authority for charging. You can have authority under the GPTR and not under the HTA, as long as you're charging the offence under GPTR. Same thing with RCMP in OTtawa under both GPTR and National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations. The actual substantive offense charged is still the GPTR offense, with the pursuant HTA offense simply noted to define the illegal act. You could be following a driver who is visibly talking on a cell phone on municipal streets, and have no authority to act. The instant they cross onto DND property, nail them under GPTR. But I don't buy your characterization that they were going to remove ability to enforce HTA. That's not the military's call, that entirely the province's call off federal property, and they don't need to ask the military. Military _orders or policy_ may preclude you from enforcing a law, but that does not mean the _law itself_ doesn't let you do so. In this case I suspect that there simply is no provision for MPs in Alberta to enforce the HTA. There is merely the 'pursuant to' interaction between the GPTR and the HTA.



The briefing made it very clear, they did not want us enforcing 6(1) GPTR. Only when we raised the potential problems did they go back to the A/Jag and ask for clarification.


----------



## brihard (28 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> The briefing made it very clear, they did not want us enforcing 6(1) GPTR. Only when we raised the potential problems did they go back to the A/Jag and ask for clarification.



OK, we may have accidentally been talking past each other here. As long as you have authority granted under GPTR, you do not need any under HTA as long as you're on turf that GPTR covers. So they may have had a helmet fire over HTA stuff, but that suggests someone was missing how those two laws actually interface...


----------



## devil39 (28 Jul 2017)

I like the model that would have MPs running TCPs, doing convoy escort, running detention facilities, etc.  Dressed like Army guys and doing Army guy things.  

Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.


----------



## Dissident (28 Jul 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I like the model that would have MPs running TCPs, doing convoy escort, running detention facilities, etc.  Dressed like Army guys and doing Army guy things.
> 
> Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.



Here is the thread you are looking for:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/4577.800.html


----------



## Habs (28 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> The simple fact is, as of right now, the Provost Marshall has directed we can no enforce provincial legislation on our property; regardless of what some may think, if you decide to enforce provisions of the mental health act of your province, you can and likely will be charge, CRB...not to mention the civil liability for the Charter breaches of unlawful detainment under section 10 which reads:



That certainly sounds like how your CoC and det is operating, as you've described in hysterics numerous times now. However, it's not the same for the entire country, and to keep denying that fact for whatever reason you have is baffling, and spreads false information that doesn't serve a purpose whatsoever.

If you'd like to have a conversation about the original post and other discussion points presented here, I would gladly join in. But, you'll need to accept the fact that a police force/trade of over 1200 people across the globe doesn't operate the exact same in each location, and that your det is definitely not the be all, end all for examples to draw on.

If that's not something you're willing to do, so be it, but I seriously don't understand the point in having a discussion where you blatantly deny any experiences that don't match your own.


----------



## Inspir (28 Jul 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.



Tried and failed, miserably. Decades ago...


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.



"Replace base MP with RCMP" 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/29313.0;nowap
13 pages.


----------



## trooper142 (28 Jul 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> That certainly sounds like how your CoC and det is operating, as you've described in hysterics numerous times now. However, it's not the same for the entire country, and to keep denying that fact for whatever reason you have is baffling, and spreads false information that doesn't serve a purpose whatsoever.
> 
> If you'd like to have a conversation about the original post and other discussion points presented here, I would gladly join in. But, you'll need to accept the fact that a police force/trade of over 1200 people across the globe doesn't operate the exact same in each location, and that your det is definitely not the be all, end all for examples to draw on.
> 
> If that's not something you're willing to do, so be it, but I seriously don't understand the point in having a discussion where you blatantly deny any experiences that don't match your own.



That is what I am trying to say; before you very correct, most dets operated a bit differently depending on what province/chain of command, flavour of the week, etc. Then there was a symposium in May in Ottawa, where all detachment commanders and all elements (Navy Gp, Army Gp, Air Force Gp) and they were flat out told by the Provost Marshall and the JAG that all detachments shall operate this way from now on, and no MP in the country were allowed to enforce provincial legislation. 

This goes back to the original post, because it was as a result of a visit to Edmonton by the PM last year that prompted the ball to roll, resulting in what I am talking about. The intention of the PM and the JAG was to make all MPs across the country do the same thing; so if your Chain is still allowing this to happen, it is your chain that is failing, not mine. But I digress.

Resorting to calling my information "false, and hysteric" defeats the purpose of meaningful debate.

I would be glad to send you the powerpoint disseminated from the CoC, from the PM if youd like, might help with the confusion currently.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> That certainly sounds like how your CoC and det is operating, as you've described in hysterics numerous times now. However, it's not the same for the entire country, and to keep denying that fact for whatever reason you have is baffling, and spreads false information that doesn't serve a purpose whatsoever.
> 
> If you'd like to have a conversation about the original post and other discussion points presented here, I would gladly join in. But, you'll need to accept the fact that a police force/trade of over 1200 people across the globe doesn't operate the exact same in each location, and that your det is definitely not the be all, end all for examples to draw on.
> 
> If that's not something you're willing to do, so be it, but I seriously don't understand the point in having a discussion where you blatantly deny any experiences that don't match your own.


Habs, you are scaring me.  Very much.

Brihard, who is NOT MP, nailed it on the second post in this thread, MP are not unique in this issue, yet you continue to assert that you, and your location of employment, are somehow different than the rest of the MP, and the RCMP members not on provincial contracts, across Canada.

You're not.

First, to be clear, MP have NEVER had the authority to enforce standalone Provincial Legislation.  The fact that it was happening was illegal and when the CF MP Gp Comd became aware of the scope of the problem, and more importantly the liability MP who were doing this in good faith with the belief that they did have the authority and backing of DND to do this, he put out clarifying direction in CF MP Gp Order 2-300 in the spring of 2015.  MP got away with it for as long as we did simply because nobody challenged the authority of MP to do what we were doing.  If someone had, the house of cards would have come crashing down, badly.  As the saying goes, you never want to make Case Law but if you do, you really don't want to make bad Case Law.

What you are doing is no different than if Joe Civilian who lives down the street from you self-appointed himself as a "Provincial Police Officer" and decided to start enforcing Provincial Legislation.

What you are doing, if you are continuing to enforce Provincial Legislation without an enabling Federal Act, is illegal.  Full stop.  

You are in contravention of CF MP Gp Order 2-300.  You obviously have not read it, even though it was published and in effect in Spring 2015 (this issue is not as recent as this May or even last fall).  Or if you have read it, you failed to understand it.  Or even worse, as someone who is professing to be a law enforcement professional, you are just ignoring it.  In any of these cases, you need to fix that personal development deficiency and quickly.  Note that CF MP Gp Orders are not suggestions, or a request, they are Orders. For clarity, 2-300 is not what "stops" MP from enforcing Provincial Legislation, it simply clarifies the legal reality, MP DO NOT have legal authority to enforce Provincial Legislation without an enabling Federal Act, such as the Government Property Traffic Act (from which GPTRs derive their legal standing).  There is no moral obligation to act which confers legal authority.  There is no public expectation to act that confers legal authority.  There is no ability for someone in your chain of command to grant you that authority.  And, perhaps more importantly if you are a supervisor, there is no ability for you to grant that authority to your subordinates.  There is no wiggle room.

You are enforcing legislation you have no authority to enforce.  You make an arrest under the provincial Mental Health Act, you have now made an illegal arrest.  You individually apply provincial administrative penalties to a driver, you have now deprived someone of their ability to drive a vehicle and perhaps even impounded their vehicle, with no authority.  This opens you up to the possibility of a MPCC complaint, it opens you up to the possibility of criminal charges (assault if you used force arresting someone under a mental health act for instance), you have breached Charter Rights willfully and you have opened yourself up to civil liability.  

And in all of this, you will be on your own because you are not acting as Cpl Habs the MP but rather Mr Habs the civilian, because you have individually tried to assume powers and authorities granted within Provincial Legislation which you are unable to do, notwithstanding the fact that you are appointed as a Peace Officer in the Criminal Code.  You will not be entitled to legal representation from the Department to fight the charges or the civil lawsuit.  If there are damages awarded in a civil lawsuit, you are solely responsible for those.  The liability you are placing yourself under is huge and you're blissfully oblivious and downright hostile to those who obviously have a greater understanding of the issue than you currently do trying to give you a heads up.  To illustrate the liability you face...

First, you need to find a lawyer who will represent you.  I know MP who have been awarded funding from the DOJ to cover their legal costs while being sued who have been unable to find a quality lawyer for the simple fact that you will be a "one of" client whereas the really good non-governmental attorneys who specialize in these types of cases make their money from suing police, not defending us.

Second, it is not uncommon for the lawyer's fees that I have seen for MP who are being provided legal counsel to have a starting point of $75,000 and go from there.  I'm not sure about you, but I don't have that kind of money lying around and the lawyer is going to ask for it, up front, and once a bank understands what it is you need the money for, they are going to be very hesitant to lend that kind of cash to someone who could soon be out of a job with a large civil settlement hanging over their head and...

Third, settlements in these kinds of cases do not run in the hundreds and thousands of dollars.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars is a starting point and it isn't hard to find articles telling of lawyers suing for wrongful arrest going for millions...

After that article, I can guarantee you that there are now lawyers who are going to be actively searching for clients who are willing to be their cash-cow for a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  And there are going to be people who have been subjected to illegal action by MP who are now aware of the issue who will be seeking them out.

I'm not sure what it's going to take for you to get your head out of the sand and wake up to reality.  But it needs to happen quickly.

You assert that somehow because MP are dispersed across Canada means that CF MP Gp Orders can't set a standard.  You're sorely mistaken.  The whole point of CF MP Gp Orders are to provide a consistent standard across all locations MP serve.  It doesn't matter if you are AF MP Gp, Army MP Gp, Naval MP Gp or SOF MP Gp, policing is guided and regulated by those Orders.  No subordinate commander, of any rank, has the ability to modify their implementation.

If you can't take the word for the guy I'm about to quote with regard to MP and Provincial Legislation, you might as well hand in your tin on Monday because you're never going to "get it".



> Brig.-Gen. Rob Delaney, the Canadian Forces' provost marshal, says finding a legislative fix that would satisfy the federal government and all provinces and territories is going to be tough and complex.
> 
> "Those civilian, either civilian employees or members of the public — who are on a defence establishment and if we're dealing with those individuals during time of crisis — we don't have the same authorities as a provincial constable might," he told CBC News.
> 
> ...



One more quote, from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v NOLAN.  When I went through what was then CFSIS (Canadian Forces School of Intelligence and Security which was the predecessor to CFMPA) this was required reading and we went quite in depth as to what it meant, the authorities it confirmed for us but most importantly, the biggest restriction it placed upon us and we all were well aware of the boundaries we had to work within.  Somehow along the way, it has been forgotten about but it still needs to be required reading.:

R v Nolan



> Callaghan J. of the Ontario High Court reached the same conclusion in R. v. Pile (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 268, at p. 272.
> 
> 18.              The weight of authority points, therefore, to the conclusion that s. 2 (f)(i) does not extend the authority of military police to act as "peace officers" throughout a province and in relation to all residents of a province, duplicating the role and function of the civil police. Of course, the mere preponderance of authority is not sufficient in itself to justify a particular conclusion before this Court, unless that authority is grounded in reason and fairness. In the present case, however, authority, common sense and principle all lead to the same conclusion.
> 
> ...



Now, maybe you're the one who is right here, I'm willing to admit that.  But my military mind says it is incredibly unlikely that you and your Detachment have stumbled onto something the rest of the MP and JAG world have missed.  If you really are right though, prove it.  Give us the link to something, anything, that is an authoritative document because, I'm sorry, I'm still doing it and my Det is doing it, means it's OK doesn't cut it.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

And just a note of thought here...

While it is possible for provinces to independently write us into their Police Act or whatever the particular provincial flavor is, that would NOT automatically grant us the authority to start enforcing provincial legislation.  Much like we operate DND vehicles on provincial roadways without provincial registration or provincial driver's licenses, the provinces have no authority to independently empower us with anything.  That would require the acquiescence of the Federal Government.  Alberta came close in 2010 with Bill-C27 to make MP subject to the Alberta Police Act complaint process and then in 2012 started to add MP into the Traffic Safety Act definition of a peace officer but nothing made it all the way through, probably due to not getting approval (or maybe even a WTF do you think you're doing) from Ottawa.  

It would also open up the can of worms of the province using that as a back-door to assert provincial legislative jurisdiction over federal lands...and that's a jurisdictional black hole in and of itself.

MP are defined as Peace Officers in the Provincial Offences Procedures Act but I've always viewed that as an enabling step for Alberta to sign onto the Contraventions Act, which they won't do for some reason.


----------



## trooper142 (29 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That's not how it works for provincial offences. The RCMP act doesn't give that authority. The authority of an RCMP officer working in a province to enforce provincial statutes comes from that province's own laws. The RCMP act gives RCMP the pwoer to enforce all _federal_ laws throughout Canada- e.g., a Mountie in Ontario has a common law authority to pull someone over if they're a danger to the public (R. v. Seguin, ONCJ), and can pursue a criminal investigation, e.g. for impaired driving. But there's no authority under provincial law for RCMP to write traffic tickets off federal property. It's just that Ontario is, so far as I'ma ware, the only province that screwed this up. The workaround, as I mentioned earlier, is that a bunch of RCMP in Ottawa have been given special constable status that gives limits provincial authority under five and only five acts. Interestingly, prior to the Special Cosntable thing, the issue of the provincial suspensions and impounds for impaired under the ONHTA never got challenged that I'm aware of, however RCMP members have definitely been issuing suspensions and impounds for those who blow over 80 in the course of a lawfully commenced impaired investigation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged...
> 
> I was doing some digging yesterday. In Alberta it appears the solution for MPs would be for the 'employer' (CAF) to request to the appropriate provincial ministry for MPs to be desginated as 'peace officers' under the Alberta Peace Officers Act. The minister has the power to approve that without a legislative change.



Sorry I didn't finish my point here haha!

I meant if the federal government wrote a Military Police Act, similar to the RCMP act, that would allow the provinces something to reference in their respective police acts without confurring provincial authority over federal land.

The MP Act would be where we dervive our authority from as opposed to go orders, including the ability to enforce provincial legislation on our property and on our members! I don't know all the ins and outs, but I'm sure it can be done!

The Federal government recently named MPs in the revised CDSA (bill c37). I see this as a step in the eventual direction of complete independence from the chain.

Back to the original article; not having the ability to enforce the mental health act is a dangerous place to be as a police officer. It is a problem waiting to happen! I feel very sorry for the MP who has to deal with someone who won't go to the hospital,but very clearly needs to! That will be a tough day if that person decides to later kill themselves after the MPs leave. I hope I never have to be put in that position!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jul 2017)

Am I wrong in thinking that, after reading the past few pages of this very instructive thread, the move in 2011 to remove MPs from the CoC, create an MP Group and emphasize law enforcement duties over tactical MP/Security duties was actually the result of poor (no?) legal advice and some wishful thinking?

How in the hell did this not get noticed before? Where was the leadership of MP Gp in all of this?

In some of my previous employment, I have had the privilege of working very closely with rank and file MPs, who were (with one notable exception) exceptionally good cops and good human beings, to boot. I know for a fact that they, on occasion, enforced the very acts, now prohibited by Group Orders. I am sick to my stomach that some of them may now be in personal legal jeopardy, if some enterprising lawyer gets busy chasing ambulances. And I want to be clear- in the instances in which I was involved, they acted in good faith, with compassion and they save lives.

This is such a mess that it suggests to me that there is no easy way out but to consider contracting out garrison policing to the RCMP/OPP/SQ...


----------



## Habs (29 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Habs, you are scaring me.  Very much.
> 
> Brihard, who is NOT MP, nailed it on the second post in this thread, MP are not unique in this issue, yet you continue to assert that you, and your location of employment, are somehow different than the rest of the MP, and the RCMP members not on provincial contracts, across Canada.
> 
> ...



I never mentioned anything about the RCMP, not sure why you brought that up. I also never asserted myself or my det as being different as the rest of the MP, simply stated to trooper142 that we have not been briefed/emailed/called/whatever on this 'directive' from the PM, and that obviously it was not sent out to all MPs if there is an entire detachment (and maybe, probably more) ops normal.

And yes, I know what group orders are for, thanks. However, if you think that just because the point of them is to have a standardized way of doing things across the country, means that a standard is actually followed, you are the one sorely mistaken. Anyone who has worked at more than one location knows this isn't true.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to comment on the far-fetched scenario you wrote up full of condescending remarks, a holier than you attitude, and wild assumptions. Mainly because I said nothing about the law/provincial vs federal/liability that you went on about, it doesn't even make sense as to why you directed it at me. All of my posts were with trooper142 and informing him that it simply is not true that "all MPs were told."

Edit: I suppose my first post talked about the law. However, these files by not only myself, but others in the det, have been recorded/reported (obviously) and gone all the way to the top multiple times, as do any complex file. If there is such a fuss as you say, obviously there is a big disconnect in the CoC somewhere.

Regardless of the MHA, there are still ways to arrest/detain someone threatening self harm, civilian or military (not talking about the NDA). We can still do our job, the absence of a provincial MHA doesn't make us useless. I could explain this to you, but it sounds like you already have your "I know everything" hat on.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (29 Jul 2017)

I'm going to interject before this becomes heated, because it's going that way...

Habs: Simply in reading your posts, the element of 'knowitall' and condescension has come through from your own posts towards others in this thread.

Users with extensive knowledge and experience are wholeheartedly encouraged to spread awareness and accurate info where discrepancies and/or convolutedness exists.

I will gladly advise others to watch their tone and choice of adjectives where necessary, but if you're going to go on the defensive against a user who (with good reason and with rank and experience to back it up) sees concern for potentially false information on how to conduct one's job circulating (and seeks to correct the problem) then you must also adhere to your own expectations of treatment within this thread.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Sorry I didn't finish my point here haha!
> 
> I meant if the federal government wrote a Military Police Act, similar to the RCMP act, that would allow the provinces something to reference in their respective police acts without confurring provincial authority over federal land.
> 
> ...


There is no need for a "Military Police Act" for the provinces to reference to if the time ever comes where they want to write us into their provincial acts, there already is a reference they can use, Section 156 of the National Defence Act.

We do not derive our authority from Gp Orders, we derive it from the National Defence Act.  Further, there is no ability for the Federal Government to pass legislation which will empower us to enforce provincial legislation on its own as per my quote of R v Nolan earlier.  

Ref "complete independence from the chain", we never should be, completely "independent".  We can't operate in a vacuum WRT the community we serve, even civilian police are accountable to, and guided by, the communities they serve via police boards or commissions, not to mention the purse strings being controlled by politicians.  There has to be responsiveness and accountability for MP back into the military community as well.


----------



## gryphonv (29 Jul 2017)

I'm interested in the fallout from this. 

Hypothetical here... but if someone charged and convicted with a crime that they already served their time/paid their dues from one that a MP went outside their legal authority to seize and arrest...would they be in line for a restitution?

Also would the MP have the backing and legal support (hopefully) of the CAF, since they were operating under a bad directive (before the update) Or will the MP also have a valid grievance of their own towards the crown for that bad directive, especially if the crown don't protect them from any legal repercussions.

This is a mess in my eyes. I've always had up most respect for MP... well except for one that enforced the negative stereotypes  .. in my short time in the military.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Am I wrong in thinking that, after reading the past few pages of this very instructive thread, the move in 2011 to remove MPs from the CoC, create an MP Group and emphasize law enforcement duties over tactical MP/Security duties was actually the result of poor (no?) legal advice and some wishful thinking?


No, it wasn't poor legal advice or wishful thinking.  It was an essential step in order to fully empower the CFPM with his mandate under the NDA.  Prior to 2011, the CFPM was responsible for the policing within the CAF yet had no authority to actually issue any orders with regard to policing.  Essentially, the CFPM could write policy but could not enforce it as none of the MP (aside from CFNIS) reported directly to the CFPM; instead they reported to the local Base Commander.  In actuality, that didn't even occur because the CO of the MP always ended up being the Base Ops O, Base Admin O or whoever and this then led to problems in issuing corrective action as a result of Professional Standards Investigations and Military Police Complaints Commission.  

Now, the CFPM is also the MP Gp Comd who has the authority to not just write and issue the policy, they also have the authority to issue orders to all MP who belong to the CF MP Gp.  As a way of illustrating why this is a good thing, we simply have to look at the issue we are talking about.  If the CFPM was simply just a policy guy, there would have been no ability for him to issue the order to cease and desist on conducting unlawful enforcement.

Is it perfect?  No but on the other hand the CF MP Gp has "only" been in existence for 6 years at this point and the vast majority of the future steps that are required involve legal reviews and opinions, not to mention legislative changes.  While these are a priority for "us", the MP, it certainly hasn't been the priority of the CAF and there is absolutely no way for the CFPM to bring political solutions to the Government on his own.  Even if he could, it isn't a "sexy" issue and not something that is going to bring glory to any PM so the legislative changes we need inevitably end up waiting for someone else to champion them, or at least get them to agree to get our issues piggybacked onto them.

While I know the perception of the majority of the CAF is the CF MP Gp is emphasizing law enforcement over the other tasks, it really isn't the case and the priority is Support to Operations.  Many locations are struggling to keep two pers per shift on the road due to the number of people we have deployed at the moment.  The bigger problem is at the Sgt/WO level where it is a daily challenge to try to balance the requirement for experienced supervision at the guardhouse with the need to deploy pers.  The fact we aren't conducting some of the tasks we should be within Canada is a simple question of numbers and capability.



> How in the hell did this not get noticed before? Where was the leadership of MP Gp in all of this?


It was noticed, the leadership was trying to come up with a "simple" fix that would not be as drastic as what happened and therefore there was a lot of willful ignorance going on.  BGen Delaney finally decided he could no longer expose the CAF and the members of the CF MP Gp to the jeopardy any longer and made the call to finally admit there was a problem and call a halt to it.  I have to give him credit for doing that as a previous CFMP's solution was to write a section of the Military Police Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (the "policy manual" prior to CF MP Gp Orders) which gave most MP the false belief that they would be fully covered for doing certain things due to a "moral duty" or "public expectation to act".



> In some of my previous employment, I have had the privilege of working very closely with rank and file MPs, who were (with one notable exception) exceptionally good cops and good human beings, to boot. I know for a fact that they, on occasion, enforced the very acts, now prohibited by Group Orders. I am sick to my stomach that some of them may now be in personal legal jeopardy, if some enterprising lawyer gets busy chasing ambulances. And I want to be clear- in the instances in which I was involved, they acted in good faith, with compassion and they save lives.


My "gut" is they should be covered if something comes of it because they were acting in good faith in accordance with the practices, procedures and policies of the time.  There are a lot of people complicit in what was going on, both within the CAF and without, who were, as I noted above, willfully ignorant and turning a blind eye while allowing the status quo to continue.  This includes the provincial crowns and judiciary btw.



> This is such a mess that it suggests to me that there is no easy way out but to consider contracting out garrison policing to the RCMP/OPP/SQ...


There is no easy way out, period.  At the end of the day, Defence Establishments are federal property that hold a unique status.  In my opinion, the best way forward, although it will be long and messy, is to pursue the option of getting the provinces, territories and federal government on board with empowering MP appropriately.  Unfortunately, we are a very, very small blip on any of those radars and it is going to take a lot of political muscle and capital to make it happen.

I say this not for job protection, I'd love to have RCMP take the contract because their precedent is to take people across laterally on assuming the contract; my salary would more than double overnight and I'd retain my pension.  But the reality is, if the RCMP take the contract, we are no farther ahead because they would be "federal" RCMP with the problem that Brihard illustrated and still unable to enforce provincial legislation.  If we go with provincial and municipal police forces who have jurisdiction surrounding the bases, now you are trying to coordinate a consistent contract and MOU with an exponentially greater number of actors.  Take the NCR alone; you have OPS, OPP, QPP and Gatineau police in a 20 minute radius of 101 Colonel By Drive (depending on traffic), all of which have Defence Establishments within their jurisdictional boundaries.  Throw in the items that you know are going to be non-negotiable (no civilian police service is going to waive charge laying authority to a CO and all of the issues that are being dealt with via S 130 of the NDA will automatically go downtown because whoever happens to be the responding Constable on that call doesn't know (or care) any better...), the "special" issues we have such as response times to ammo depots and weapons vaults, requirement for security clearances (high security zones, aircraft that are classified in and of them self...), the expected response times we want but no civilian police force is going to guarantee...

As was alluded to earlier, outsourcing garrison policing was looked at by the Commander of CFB Borden back in the 90s when Alternative Service Delivery was all the rage and as he "owned" the MP, he was empowered to make that decision, or at least have the discussion and it died a quick death because what the OPP were willing to offer was not a deal in any way shape or form.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (29 Jul 2017)

In order for us to enforce provincial legislation, the province(s) need to be signatory to the Contraventions Act.

BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newbrunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland are the only provinces that are signatory to the Contraventions Act; allowing MP to enforce Provincial Legislation via Contraventions Act.

MP are already defined in Alberta's Provincial Offences Procedure Act, it wouldn't be any harder to sign in agreement to the Contraventions Act.

However, the Provost Marshal has said that until there is equal representation of MPs across all Provinces with proper legislation, no MP shall enforce Provincial legislation. There are, unfortunately, some Chains of Command that continue to allow such to occur and is only hurting us.

Until the provinces recognize, and write in MP into legislation designating as Peace Officers, our hands are tied.

It's no different for the RCMP. If they're not explicitly designated in the Peace Officer Act, Police Act, Offences Act/Regulation etc.... They can't enforce provincial legislation either.


----------



## brihard (29 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I say this not for job protection, I'd love to have RCMP take the contract because their precedent is to take people across laterally on assuming the contract; my salary would more than double overnight and I'd retain my pension.  But the reality is, if the RCMP take the contract, we are no farther ahead because they would be "federal" RCMP with the problem that Brihard illustrated and still unable to enforce provincial legislation.



I believe you've missed or misunderstood part of what I've said. Ontario is the only jurisdiction where this is the case. In every other province and territory the power of the RCMP is either specifically written into statute, or the same statutes specifically enable the province to enter into a service agreement with the RCMP. If, hypothetically, the RCMP were to become the police service for our bases and facilities, in every other province they would have full provincial powers. In Ontario they would still have the GPTR This would leave only the narrow gap already befalling the uniformed RCMP in Ottawa- lack of independent provincial statute powers, so for instance things like suspensions and impounds for driving offences. GPTR gives all the 'pursuant to' offences from ONHTA, but it doesn't give the corresponding powers to yank some numpty's license or impound the car.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> Hypothetical here... but if someone charged and convicted with a crime that they already served their time/paid their dues from one that a MP went outside their legal authority to seize and arrest...would they be in line for a restitution?
> 
> Also would the MP have the backing and legal support (hopefully) of the CAF, since they were operating under a bad directive (before the update) Or will the MP also have a valid grievance of their own towards the crown for that bad directive, especially if the crown don't protect them from any legal repercussions.



Let's say an MP picks off a drunk driver leaving the mess. Executes a traffic stop, enters into an impaired driving investigation, and the driver ends up blowing two breath samples that result in criminal charges of impaired driving. That's straight Criminal Code. No provincial power is needed for that. HOWEVER, most provinces and territories (maybe all?) have also enacted administrative driving suspensions. For instance, in Ontario as soon as you blow over 80, under _provincial_ law you lose your license for 90 days and your car for 7 (Alberta's system of suspensions just got shot down, but that's because whoever wrote their law was stupid. We won't talk about that one. They need to re-write it.). Thing is, to do that impound and suspension, you have to have provincial statute powers. So say you're the MP in CFB Petawawa who gets that impaired. Under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, you are not recognized as a police office,r and so you have no authority to impound the vehicle or suspend the driver.

Nonetheless, due to good faith error, this has been happening in various provinces. Good faith or not, it's still an unlawful suspension. So now let's say Numpty McDrunky gets his car back a week later, goes out for a drive, and gets pulled over by... Say Ottawa Police. They run him and find that hes prohibited from driving in Ontario due to a suspension entered by the Petawawa MP. So they charge him with drive while suspended. Even better, let's say they arrest him for drive while suspended and drive without a license. So he goes and lawyers up, and his lawyer realizes his original suspension was issued by an MP. Now he turns around and files a civil lawsuit because he was arrested by OPS on the strength of an unlawful suspension. Take it one farther and say that force is used in arresting him, removing him from the vehicle, what have you. A whole bunch of liability can fall on the MPs. Or, say his vehicle is damaged by the tow, or some valuables within the vehicle are stolen. Again, MPs could be on the hook for an unlawful impound. 

So, see where this can be a real problem? The legal answer on this one would be to call the local police of jurisdiction to the scene of the impaired driving to effect the vehicle impound, and get one of their guys to sign the notice of suspension. Embarassing to have to do that due to jurisdictional issues.

The provinces do have the independent ability to pass legislation naming MPs as peace officers, police officers or what have you under these acts. They don't need federal permission. They could grant the legal *authority* to do so to the MPs. However the MPs on the road could then be in a position where they are statutorily empowered by the provinces, but still not *allowed* to enforce those laws due to orders by the CF MP group. That would also be clumsy and awkward.



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> In order for us to enforce provincial legislation, the province(s) need to be signatory to the Contraventions Act.



No, that's not accurate. The contraventions act allows for offences under federal laws to be treated as provincial offences for prosecution purposes. E.g., in Ontario a Mountie who writes a ticket for speeding on National Capital Commission property under the NCC Traffic and Property Regulations is charging a federal offense, but can write an Ontario Certificate of Offense (ticket), and it gets prosecuted in normal Ontario provincial traffic court. Likewise an MP writing a similar offense under GPTR. It just greatly simplifies the judicial process for offences that have been deemed minor enough for that to be the suitable course of action. If, hypothetically, tomorrow Alberta amended the provincial laws to designate Military Police as 'peace officers' for the purposes of the highway Traffic Act, (and let's take CFPM out of the equation for simplicity), then an MP could write a ticket for a provincial traffic offense under provincial law and it would go through provincial court as if it were written by a provincial sheriff or civilian police officer. This is in essence what RCMP/OPS are doing in Ottawa by designating RCMP members as special constables. There are still hiccups with that system, but its smoothing out.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> I never mentioned anything about the RCMP, not sure why you brought that up. I also never asserted myself or my det as being different as the rest of the MP, simply stated to trooper142 that we have not been briefed/emailed/called/whatever on this 'directive' from the PM, and that obviously it was not sent out to all MPs if there is an entire detachment (and maybe, probably more) ops normal.
> 
> And yes, I know what group orders are for, thanks. However, if you think that just because the point of them is to have a standardized way of doing things across the country, means that a standard is actually followed, you are the one sorely mistaken. Anyone who has worked at more than one location knows this isn't true.
> 
> ...


Look, normally I couldn't care less about a poster's experience and rank (nor do most people on this board, posts stand or die on their own) but since you keep bringing up your experience and how if someone worked at more than "one det" they would understand certain things, this time I do care.  The reality is, as per perusing your posting history here, your TI as a credentialed MP commenced just a little over a year ago and your experience is limited to working at one det (at least as a posting).  So please stop trying to belittle and dismiss what people with way more experience than you are saying.

You make an issue that you have never been told about this "directive".  The reality is, it is an order and not a directive (yes, legally, there is a difference), and it was in existence for well over a year before you were even qualified as MP.  The other reality is it was fully promulgated at the time it was issued so everyone has been "officially notified" of its existence.  Yes, it is quite possible somewhere, somehow there is a rogue Det out there which is still doing "ops normal" as you want to call it but my guess would be that if it is the case, nobody actually took the time to read and understand the contents of the order.  

While that may be true, it does not make what is going on legal and it does not absolve you of any personal liability.  You, of all people, should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.  And the same applies for a CF MP Gp Order that was in effect well before you became a MP.  It is not only your duty as a MP to be knowledgeable and conversant with CF MP Gp Orders, but also your duty as a NCM within the Canadian Armed Forces. 

And yet you still wonder why my "far fetched" scenario was directed at you.  Let me make it clear to you; _*if what you say is true, you are putting yourself at risk of being sued and the DND/CAF is going to leave you hanging out there all by yourself.*_  And that is troubling, particularly in light of this statement by you:


> Regardless of the MHA, there are still ways to arrest/detain someone threatening self harm, civilian or military (not talking about the NDA).


I can think of lots of ways to do that as well, all of them resulting in a Charter Breach for unlawful arrest or detention.

You may think my scenario is far fetched but it really isn't.  MP get sued.  Not on a daily basis but often enough, I know of 4 x MP who have been sued within the last year as a result of their duties at a Guardhouse and lets not forget LCol Stalker's $8 million statement of claim related to the CFNIS investigation of him...

You're right, I am not so deluded as to think that CF MP Gp Orders are being followed to the letter from coast to coast, I'm in the loop and see PS and MPCC reports come across my desk, so fully realize that there are MP who can't be bothered to comply until they get caught.  But on the other hand, this is not simply a matter of someone not filling in a DI sheet at the start of shift, this is one that is kinda important and everyone does need to be following it, no matter what they wish they could do locally. 

Contrary to your belief that I have my "know it all hat" on, I don't.  I have clearly and explicitly asked you to educate me as to how what you are doing is legal with a verifiable source that clearly articulates the authority for you to be doing what you claim to be doing.  Yet you can't, beyond it being "ops normal".  That does not bode well and I would really advise you against using that as an answer to a question in court.  I would pay money to see the reaction of the Crown to that though...

But I'm still willing to concede that maybe you're right, and if you are and can prove that via a verifiable source I will be the first to apologize to you.  

In the meantime, my 30+ years of experience give me a broader perspective and understanding beyond the four doors of a patrol car pondering what I'm going to have for lunch and I will continue to try to get through to people who really just don't get it and think they know more than the very, very high priced help.


----------



## garb811 (29 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I believe you've missed or misunderstood part of what I've said. Ontario is the only jurisdiction where this is the case.
> ...


Ack, had some confirmation bias going there based on a conversation with a ex-MP who went RCMP and we both ended up in Ottawa many moons ago.  At the time when he stated he couldn't enforce provincial and I just extrapolated that out at the time as being valid for all non-provincial contract pers across Canada.



> So, see where this can be a real problem? The legal answer on this one would be to call the local police of jurisdiction to the scene of the impaired driving to effect the vehicle impound, and get one of their guys to sign the notice of suspension. Embarassing to have to do that due to jurisdictional issues.


And that's the current work around, which does suck royally.  Best thing to do is to equate it kind of like what happens with Breathtechs/SFST qualified pers/DRE...if we don't have someone qualified then we reach out for that anyway, same goes vice versa in locations where the local police are a small Det and we have those pers avail.



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> In order for us to enforce provincial legislation, the province(s) need to be signatory to the Contraventions Act.
> 
> BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newbrunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland are the only provinces that are signatory to the Contraventions Act; allowing MP to enforce Provincial Legislation via Contraventions Act.
> 
> ...


Brihard is right Lunchmeat.  Unfortunately there are a lot of MP who misunderstand what the Contravention Act is all about and think it is the Holy Grail we need. While it would be a great step forward in Alberta and Saskatchewan (where the outcome of a GPTR offence is a mandatory appearance in Federal Court) it is only a small step.

You are right though in that the CFPM wants to have a consistent solution across Canada as concurrently as possible but I don't think he is willing to avoid giving the green light in provinces that end up ahead of the game...not that any of this is going to happen in his tenure, or the next...or probably even the next after that.


----------



## brihard (30 Jul 2017)

Habs- I don't have the experience others in this thread do, but I have some, and I have a decent nose for law.

We as law enforcement (in our respective organizations) differ from civilians only where we are specifically empowered in some fashion by statue or common law. If it's not on paper in black and white in statute or a court's decision, it just isn't a thing.

So let's say I'm police of jurisdiction where you work. While crossing from one DND site to another, while on municipal streets, you run a plate, it comes back expired. You pull the vehicle over, turns out the driver is suspended and has no ID on him. Using a provincial statute authority you arrest him and put him in the back of your car, you figure out who he is (some civilian), and you release him on an appearance notice for provincial traffic offenses, and tow his car. He's in the back of your car for ten minutes under arrest strictly on provincial authority that you're saying is something some MPs are routinely exercising.

The next day I get the file where this person complains that he was forcibly confined by an MP, and that he was assaulted in the form of being handcuffed, plus his car was unlawfully seized. I'm stuck with the file, I can't just wave it away. On the strength of his statement and what I know of the law, I have RPG for criminal charges and he's bloody adamant that he wants you charged. My boss shrugs and says to go with what the law says.

What piece of law, what statute or case are you pointing me to to show me that you have legal authority to enforce that provincial statute, and everything that flowed from same? To show that what you did was in fact lawful? What can you show me that makes it not offences on your part? What is saving your ***? What piece of law is going to allow your leadership to go to bat for you and to be in the right in doing so? Because frankly that's what it can come down to. I don't know if you've been on the wrong end of complaints or a lawsuit. I have- both (so far so good). You'd better have your ducks in a row and be able to articulate your authorities. If the law doesn't clearly state you can do something that would otherwise be an offense, you can't do it.

Another, probably better example: you're responding to a suicidal soldier, and you locate him. Based on the info you have, you advise him that he is being apprehended under the Mental Health Act. He doesn't take well to this detention and resista physically. In the course of him attempting to escape you, you use reasonable force to prevent him doing so, and as a result he suffers a broken clavicle. These things happen. But you told him you were apprehending him under MHA. What line in law gives you that authority and keeps you from going under that bus for assault causing in the course of an unlawful detention? If it's not on paper in black and white, don't even bother trying. Cite the law that makes you a person empowered to make an MHA apprehension.

I do not have the MO group orders accessible, as a reservist my DWAN access is spotty. But I believe the other gentlemen in this thread pointed you to 2-300? Which I understand to be a core MP operations manual. Switching my hats for a second here, and speaking as an NCO in the forces- know and understand your applicable standing orders. That is your duty as a professional in the CAF. You have been pointed in the correct direction; I strongly suggest you follow the direction given by others in your trade and rectify such shortcomings in your professional knowledge as you may discover. There's always room left under the bus. I don't think you'll steer yourself wrong by heeding what Garb and other more experienced members of the profession have to say.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jul 2017)

Garb,

Thank you for the very articulate response to my post, above.

To be clear- when I talk about about contract policing- I mean police work, not security work. I would not ask the RCMP (or whomever) to be our guard force. I am more than conversant with security regulations and the armed response times required for various articles the CF owns.


----------



## Haggis (30 Jul 2017)

For the record, I find this to be a fascinating discussion, regardless of the seriousness of the original topic. Keep up the great and informative discussion.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2017)

Concur, very informative. 

From an outsider looking in, does this mean HTA offenses (speeding, rolling stop, etc) on the Base are not enforceable? Or is it because its on the Base, its a Federal facility and the MPs have jurisdiction from some law that's not the HTA?


----------



## brihard (30 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Concur, very informative.
> 
> From an outsider looking in, does this mean HTA offenses (speeding, rolling stop, etc) on the Base are not enforceable? Or is it because its on the Base, its a Federal facility and the MPs have jurisdiction from some law that's not the HTA?



The latter. The Government Property Traffic Regulations make it an offense on government property to operate a motor vehicle in contravention of the laws of the province or municipality. Some offences (speeding, license, registration, signs, traffic control devices) are written right into the GPTR, and for anything else, the 'cathall' section 6(1) gets it- rules of the road type stuff.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (30 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Concur, very informative.
> 
> From an outsider looking in, does this mean HTA offenses (speeding, rolling stop, etc) on the Base are not enforceable? Or is it because its on the Base, its a Federal facility and the MPs have jurisdiction from some law that's not the HTA?



It's enforceable, we just can't write Provincial Violation Tickets for the offences. We have to issue Appearance Notices.... So depending on how minor the offence is, it's not even worth doing anything more than just giving a warning and public education.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> For the record, I find this to be a fascinating discussion, regardless of the seriousness of the original topic. Keep up the great and informative discussion.


 :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2017)

Good info thanks!


----------



## RedcapCrusader (30 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Ack, had some confirmation bias going there based on a conversation with a ex-MP who went RCMP and we both ended up in Ottawa many moons ago.  At the time when he stated he couldn't enforce provincial and I just extrapolated that out at the time as being valid for all non-provincial contract pers across Canada.
> And that's the current work around, which does suck royally.  Best thing to do is to equate it kind of like what happens with Breathtechs/SFST qualified pers/DRE...if we don't have someone qualified then we reach out for that anyway, same goes vice versa in locations where the local police are a small Det and we have those pers avail.
> Brihard is right Lunchmeat.  Unfortunately there are a lot of MP who misunderstand what the Contravention Act is all about and think it is the Holy Grail we need. While it would be a great step forward in Alberta and Saskatchewan (where the outcome of a GPTR offence is a mandatory appearance in Federal Court) it is only a small step.
> 
> You are right though in that the CFPM wants to have a consistent solution across Canada as concurrently as possible but I don't think he is willing to avoid giving the green light in provinces that end up ahead of the game...not that any of this is going to happen in his tenure, or the next...or probably even the next after that.



I know that we would need to be defined in the Police Act/Peace Officer Act, but from my interpretation is that the Contraventions Act was a two way street. It not only allowed Fed Regs to be enforced as a provincial matter, but also allowed provincial offences to be enforce via the Contraventions Act. Nobody had ever really explained it very well, mainly because we couldn't touch provincial anyway.


I know PM Delaney has been working hard, but there is only so much he's able to do as a Chief of Police, the solution has to come from a lawmaker.


----------



## putz (30 Jul 2017)

I was just lurking in the background here and I am curious about something.  Lunchmeat mentioned the CFPM wants us recognized in each province the same and until that happens then it's as per.
My understanding of the changes is that the JAG had recommended to the CFPM base on theyre interpretations of the constitution act (BNA) of 1867 which they believe does not allow the provinces to give authority to allow the military to enforce provincial statues.

IF that's the case they how could anything, shirt of amending the co stituion change that.

Sidenote I have always believed that interpretation was wrong


----------



## brihard (30 Jul 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> It's enforceable, we just can't write Provincial Violation Tickets for the offences. We have to issue Appearance Notices.... So depending on how minor the offence is, it's not even worth doing anything more than just giving a warning and public education.



I assume you're in a province that's not a signatory to the Contraventions Act then? That sucks... having to attend court for any minor traffic thing that would elsewhere be a ticket is definitely a pain in the rear.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jul 2017)

Fascinating reading I must say! I do have a couple of questions:

First, if I'm reading things right, it appears that I, a lowly security guard working on a base in certain circumstances (e.g. Ontario Trespass to Property Act) have more powers to detain someone than the Military Police do? and

How does the Section 494 (Citizens Arrest) of the CCC, apply to MPs?


----------



## garb811 (30 Jul 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Fascinating reading I must say! I do have a couple of questions:
> 
> First, if I'm reading things right, it appears that I, a lowly security guard working on a base in certain circumstances (e.g. Ontario Trespass to Property Act) have more powers to detain someone than the Military Police do?


No.  Military Police have full authority to deal with trespassing issues.  Provincial trespassing laws have no force or affect on a Defence Establishment.  On a base it is contrary to the Defence Controlled Access Area Regulations (DCAARs) and if a charge were to be laid it would be Section 288 (Breach of regulations respecting defence establishments, works and materiel) of the National Defence Act, which is one of the offences in the National Defence Act that is triable by Civil Courts.  There is a misconception that the National Defence Act offences only apply to members subject to the Code of Service Discipline but Part VII of the NDA applies to everyone in Canada.  

Off topic, but interesting from my point of view given the popular belief that a reservist can't be charged for failing to attend a parade night, they can.  Section 294(1) creates the offence of "Failure to attend Parade".  Although anytime I have brought this offence forward to a JAG officer for consideration they have gone white as a ghost and started to sweat profusely, I'm not sure why any reservist would take the chance of being charged with this as the fine is a staggering $50 for each offence for an officer and $25 for each offence for a non-commissioned member.   [:'(



> How does the Section 494 (Citizens Arrest) of the CCC, apply to MPs?


This applies to MP who effect an arrest off a Defence Establishment that has no military nexus. As long as the offence was sufficiently serious that the intervention of the MP was required to prevent death or grievous bodily harm, all things being equal the MP won't face official consequences from intervening; but that intervention will have been done as a civilian and not a MP or Peace Officer.  Problems arise when it becomes apparent that a MP is "looking" for stuff off base or acted outside the scope of even Section 494, at which point action will be taken.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> No.  Military Police have full authority to deal with trespassing issues.  Provincial trespassing laws have no force or affect on a Defence Establishment.  On a base it is contrary to the Defence Controlled Access Area Regulations (DCAARs) and if a charge were to be laid it would be Section 288 (Breach of regulations respecting defence establishments, works and materiel) of the National Defence Act, which is one of the offences in the National Defence Act that is triable by Civil Courts.  There is a misconception that the National Defence Act offences only apply to members subject to the Code of Service Discipline but Part VII of the NDA applies to everyone in Canada.
> 
> Off topic, but interesting from my point of view given the popular belief that a reservist can't be charged for failing to attend a parade night, they can.  Section 294(1) creates the offence of "Failure to attend Parade".  Although anytime I have brought this offence forward to a JAG officer for consideration they have gone white as a ghost and started to sweat profusely, I'm not sure why any reservist would take the chance of being charged with this as the fine is a staggering $50 for each offence for an officer and $25 for each offence for a non-commissioned member.   [:'(
> This applies to MP who effect an arrest off a Defence Establishment that has no military nexus. As long as the offence was sufficiently serious that the intervention of the MP was required to prevent death or grievous bodily harm, all things being equal the MP won't face official consequences from intervening; but that intervention will have been done as a civilian and not a MP or Peace Officer.  Problems arise when it becomes apparent that a MP is "looking" for stuff off base or acted outside the scope of even Section 494, at which point action will be taken.



Thanks!!


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> No.  Military Police have full authority to deal with trespassing issues.  Provincial trespassing laws have no force or affect on a Defence Establishment.  On a base it is contrary to the Defence Controlled Access Area Regulations (DCAARs) and if a charge were to be laid it would be Section 288 (Breach of regulations respecting defence establishments, works and materiel) of the National Defence Act, which is one of the offences in the National Defence Act that is triable by Civil Courts.  There is a misconception that the National Defence Act offences only apply to members subject to the Code of Service Discipline but Part VII of the NDA applies to everyone in Canada.
> 
> Off topic, but interesting from my point of view given the popular belief that a reservist can't be charged for failing to attend a parade night, they can.  Section 294(1) creates the offence of "Failure to attend Parade".  Although anytime I have brought this offence forward to a JAG officer for consideration they have gone white as a ghost and started to sweat profusely, I'm not sure why any reservist would take the chance of being charged with this as the fine is a staggering $50 for each offence for an officer and $25 for each offence for a non-commissioned member.   [:'(
> This applies to MP who effect an arrest off a Defence Establishment that has no military nexus. As long as the offence was sufficiently serious that the intervention of the MP was required to prevent death or grievous bodily harm, all things being equal the MP won't face official consequences from intervening; but that intervention will have been done as a civilian and not a MP or Peace Officer.  Problems arise when it becomes apparent that a MP is "looking" for stuff off base or acted outside the scope of even Section 494, at which point action will be taken.



Interestingly I was having this discussion with a recently minted MP today. The situation I posed was the MP is on a municipal street between defense establishments, and so happens to end up being a clearly impaired driver who they feel presents a danger to the public. S.2 C.C. deems MPs as peace officers for criminal matters. R. v. Seguin, 2016 ONCJ, though it dealt with RCMP executing a traffic stop in these circumstances absent provincial authority, seems to logically apply to MPs as well. The judge found there to be a common law authority and indeed a public expectation for a police officer to act to protect public safety even where no explicit grounds exist for a vehicle stop.

You're the chain of command for an MP who, finding themselves on civilian streets behind a clearly impaired driver, with no provincial statute authority, pulls them over on public safety grounds and conducts a successful impaired driving investigation. What are you saying to them when they get back to the office?

Is R. v Seguin on the MP radar at all yet? I would contend it ought to be.


----------



## garb811 (31 Jul 2017)

putz said:
			
		

> I was just lurking in the background here and I am curious about something.  Lunchmeat mentioned the CFPM wants us recognized in each province the same and until that happens then it's as per.
> My understanding of the changes is that the JAG had recommended to the CFPM base on theyre interpretations of the constitution act (BNA) of 1867 which they believe does not allow the provinces to give authority to allow the military to enforce provincial statues.


Gah...people make their living off of studying and arguing Constitutional Law but here's a Coles Notes, layman's version, based on looking at this in relation to MP and our duties along with a couple of Political Science courses a decade or so ago...

Yes, the provinces can unilaterally give us the authority to enforce provincial statutes.  At the end of the day, it is provincial law and if they decided they wanted to give the authority to enforce provincial statutes to everyone who drives a 1978 Green Ford Mustang, that is within their authority to do so.  What they can't do is "force" us to enforce those statutes, nor can they make us accountable for breaches of those provincial statutes (ie. any police act I've looked at has oversight and disciplinary sections) and they can't use that mechanism to backdoor provincial legislation into force on a federal property.  The ironic outcome of that would be we could enforce provincial legislation everywhere but the base...

In Canada, laws cannot be imposed on a higher level of government by a lower level of government, nor can a level of government issue laws which are outside its Constitutional mandate.  Hence, since National Defence is enshrined within the Constitution as a Federal mandate, the premier of a province can't issue a law authorizing the formation of a provincial militia or national guard or whatever.  By the same token, the Federal Government can't pass legislation which imposes upon a provincial issue.  That is why instead of having a uniform Highway Traffic Act, or Mental Health Act or your choice of any other provincial act from coast to coast, we have different laws in each province addressing the exact same issues.

This barrier is why we're having problems.  Just because the Defence Establishment (or any federal government property) is in a province doesn't give the province the power to pass legislation that is directly applicable to the Defence Establishment.  Some things happen in concurrence with provincial legislation due to the "good neighbour" policy.  An example of this are messes and the serving age.  Alcohol is a provincial issue, hence the varying ages of legal consumption across Canada.  When I first got in, as long as you were a member of the CAF you were allowed to drink in the mess no matter what your age; that included 16 year old members of the militia.  At some point, and I don't remember exactly when, the messes were directed to comply with the provincial liquor acts with regard to age of consumption.  

Sometimes we don't have a choice because we want something that the province controls, again, alcohol as an example.  You want to buy business quantities of alcohol for the mess or the Canex liquor store?  Better have a liquor licence or it isn't going to happen.  

On other issues, DND and the CAF is very firm in keeping that line in the sand.  That is why occupants of RHUs don't have recourse to the provincial landlord and tenant appeal boards, why you will never see a provincial health inspector in a CAF kitchen, why provincial labour laws don't apply to us etc.

And that is why contracting law enforcement out to the local police force of jurisdiction isn't the simple fix.



> IF that's the case they how could anything, shirt of amending the co stituion change that.


The solution is an enabling act at the Federal level which then allows the provincial legislation to be enforced, as has happened with the Government Property Traffic Act. Unfortunately, once that enabling act is law, any amendments to the provincial legislation propagate automatically into force as soon as they become law without the need to gain Federal approval.  That is why instead of the GTPA and GPTRs being very generic letting us enforce the entirety of the provincial legislation, there are restrictions, caveats and stand alone offences which also exist in the provincial law.  And that is why there hasn't been an overarching law passed that enables all provincial laws on federal property.



> Sidenote I have always believed that interpretation was wrong


As much as I hate to have to admit it, on this one I'm on the side of the lawyers.


----------



## garb811 (31 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Interestingly I was having this discussion with a recently minted MP today. The situation I posed was the MP is on a municipal street between defense establishments, and so happens to end up being a clearly impaired driver who they feel presents a danger to the public. S.2 C.C. deems MPs as peace officers for criminal matters. R. v. Seguin, 2016 ONCJ, though it dealt with RCMP executing a traffic stop in these circumstances absent provincial authority, seems to logically apply to MPs as well. The judge found there to be a common law authority and indeed a public expectation for a police officer to act to protect public safety even where no explicit grounds exist for a vehicle stop.
> 
> You're the chain of command for an MP who, finding themselves on civilian streets behind a clearly impaired driver, with no provincial statute authority, pulls them over on public safety grounds and conducts a successful impaired driving investigation. What are you saying to them when they get back to the office?
> 
> Is R. v Seguin on the MP radar at all yet? I would contend it ought to be.


We give our folks latitude with regard to issues like Impaired driving as long as they have been acting in good faith.  So, if someone was on a direct route between the base and an armoury to do a security check at 2am and came across an impaired driver, they form RPG, initiate the stop, immediately have the police of jurisdiction notified and have them attend, and then clear the scene as soon as practicable once they are no longer needed, all is good.  Problems arise when it becomes obvious that someone is going out of their way to try to find incidents outside the base.

There is case law supporting MP stops off jurisdiction as well provided the civilian police take it over. Unfortunately though, R v Nolan dictates that our Peace Officer status over civilians is confined to Defence Establishments or criminal acts which occurred on a Defence Establishment. So, although we won't give them grief, they really are out on a limb as they are acting under Section 494 and they need to fully understand that which, from my experience, most don't initially...

I'm personally not tracking R v Seguin but will look it up for sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2017)

This is the best thread currently going on Army.ca

Keep it coming, guys!


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> We give our folks latitude with regard to issues like Impaired driving as long as they have been acting in good faith.  So, if someone was on a direct route between the base and an armoury to do a security check at 2am and came across an impaired driver, they form RPG, initiate the stop, immediately have the police of jurisdiction notified and have them attend, and then clear the scene as soon as practicable once they are no longer needed, all is good.  Problems arise when it becomes obvious that someone is going out of their way to try to find incidents outside the base.
> 
> There is case law supporting MP stops off jurisdiction as well provided the civilian police take it over. Unfortunately though, R v Nolan dictates that our Peace Officer status over civilians is confined to Defence Establishments or criminal acts which occurred on a Defence Establishment. So, although we won't give them grief, they really are out on a limb as they are acting under Section 494 and they need to fully understand that which, from my experience, most don't initially...
> 
> I'm personally not tracking R v Seguin but will look it up for sure.



Very interesting, thanks. I'm surprised that the expectation would be to wipe their hands of it and clear scene, given that they will be the only ones with the driving evidence, may well be the ones to administer a roadside ASD, and will likely be the ones forming RPG to arrest... Given how quickly an impaired investigation can go (usually under ten minutes from initial stop, through an ASD fail if applicable, to arrest and breath demand), could your guys not easily find themselves with one in custody in the back of the car and the clock ticking to get those samples 'forthwith'?

I completely understand your guys aren't to be out 'hunting' for traffic stuff, that's fair. RCMP in Ottawa only recently have eased up on this too, though there's now a much greater acceptance of doing traffic work. It helps that there are federal parkways in Ottawa under the NCC, and that Ottawa based members will be traveling all over the city to check on embassies, residences, and other federal sites. There is a very strong argument to be made that  a modest contribution to municipal policing along those lines (which in this context Ottawa Police are fine with) also helps officers to keep up their basic road skills and officer safety skill, lest they atrophy over years of embassy watching. I have to imagine that in some locations MPs may face similar challenges in getting much experience dealing with different things...

I'll add to the chorus here- this has been a fun, informative, and useful conversation.

Seguin is an interesting case. The impaired investigation itself did not fare well, but the verdict about common law authority to execute vehicle stops for the purposes of public safety was critical, particularly since the ON HTA does not give RCMP any statutory authority to use lights and sirens and pull someone over.  I can't say for sure how it will apply to you guys, but I would be surprised were it not informative.


EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read Seguin, and also read Nolan - I had not read that previously. Interesting, Seguin specifically engages Nolan as a comparable case. Seguin 

My take? An MP proceeding directly from one military establishment to another for duty related purposes should clearly still be within the scope of their duties, similarly to how Nolan examined that issue for purposes of determining of Criminal Code peace officer status applied. I think the law would here find the border of an MP's peace officer' status under the criminal code. An MP on duty, engaged in the scope of routine MP duties and accepted military practice, should retain that peace officer status. In the event they were to _truly incidentally_ encounter a threat to public safety, such as a clearly dangerous driver, a violent act in progress, etc, I believe the common law authority discussed in Seguin would apply.

It could go either way in court, ultimately, depending on the strengths of the positions the opposing lawyers presented and the mindset of the judge. But I certainly feel that an MP, moving through civilian turf off base on the way to their next lawful duties, who finds themself behind a clearly dangerous driver who may be impaired, would be justified and acting in good faith if they did a vehicle stop and entered into an impaired driving investigation. I believe the legal razor's edge on this one would also lean in favour of an MP who, in such good faith, acted to protect the public from potential harm at the hands of an impaired driver. I would hope that a member choosing to make the traffic stop in these circumstances would enjoy the support from their chain of command they they may not get from their own conscience should they choose to allow the driver to continue.

I could see some other factors coming into play- road conditions, traffic volume, things like that that speak to the danger to the public from the driver. I don't think these would at all interface with the member's common law authority for the stop, *but* given circumstances like the presence of other traffic, they could lend weight to the expectation that a person driving a car marked 'police' will act to stop a drunk driver.

Further to 'Hmmm..." MP in the circumstances I describe attempts a stop, and the driver takes off. Would the flight from police charge stick? If they fled (and let's assume here no pursuit - MP immediately pulls over and turns off their lights) and a few minutes later causes an accident, could liability fall ont he MP for attempting the stop? Or, MP finds themself behind a drunk driver (let's say in Ottawa, on the way from responding to a call at Uplands to the detachment at NDHQ via the Airport Parkway and Bronson to the 417), finds themselves behind the drunk driver on the parkway, sees numerous dangerous driving behaviours indicating impairment, follows, advises dispatch, who in turn advise OPS, who due to typical call volume take a few minutes to get a car rolling that way... As the car continues onto Bronson and traffic gets heavier, they blow a red light at Sunnyside and smoke a couple pedestrians crossing Bronson with the MP car directly behind watching the whole thing. What liability upon the CAF for the MP not initiating the traffic stop? What do you as the detachment sergeant tell them as their conscience rips them apart?

I completely understand why this subject would cause some MPs to shudder, but it's worth thinking and talking about.


----------



## Inspir (31 Jul 2017)

Interesting read for sure. I imagine the railway police deal with a lot of the same issues being a national police service with railway property throughout Canada.


----------



## Haggis (31 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> But I certainly feel that an MP, moving through civilian turf off base on the way to their next lawful duties, who finds themself behind a clearly dangerous driver who may be impaired, would be justified and acting in good faith if they did a vehicle stop and entered into an impaired driving investigation. I believe the legal razor's edge on this one would also lean in favour of an MP who, in such good faith, acted to protect the public from potential harm at the hands of an impaired driver.



We covered a similar "what if" regarding the authority of CBSA officer to act away from the Port of Entry.  In this scenario, a BSO (MP) is transiting between CBSA (DND) locations and observes a civilian police officer engaged in a struggle that he is quite clearly losing with no other civilian police assistance evident or in sight.  What authority does the BSO (MP) have to act in such circumstances using, if required, up to lethal force to protect the civilian cop from grievous bodily harm or death?  I know CBSA's position on this, but what is the MP position?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (31 Jul 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We covered a similar "what if" regarding the authority of CBSA officer to act away from the Port of Entry.  In this scenario, a BSO (MP) is transiting between CBSA (DND) locations and observes a civilian police officer engaged in a struggle that he is quite clearly losing with no other civilian police assistance evident or in sight.  What authority does the BSO (MP) have to act in such circumstances using, if required, up to lethal force to protect the civilian cop from grievous bodily harm or death?  I know CBSA's position on this, but what is the MP position?



MP is the same.

We are uniformed, and clearly identifiable to the public as a Police/Peace Officer and have a duty to act in events which life and limb are at risk. MPs are also afforded the same protections as if they were acting within their jurisdiction.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We covered a similar "what if" regarding the authority of CBSA officer to act away from the Port of Entry.  In this scenario, a BSO (MP) is transiting between CBSA (DND) locations and observes a civilian police officer engaged in a struggle that he is quite clearly losing with no other civilian police assistance evident or in sight.  What authority does the BSO (MP) have to act in such circumstances using, if required, up to lethal force to protect the civilian cop from grievous bodily harm or death?  I know CBSA's position on this, but what is the MP position?



Hell, that's easy, an MP or BSO status needn't even come into play.

S.25(1)(c) C.C.: 
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law...
...(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or...
...is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Further, S.34(1) C.C.: 
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

They don't even need any special powers to assist the civilian police officer or to use force in that officer's defense.

I've been in the position of being alone in a fight by the side of the road well out of town. My backup was booking it, but was still a good five minutes out, and that's a long time in a ground fight. I wasn't losing, but I wasn't winning either, and he was a big boy and amped up on something potent. Also turned out to be in possession of two knives. I was about to have to start doing real damage to him to get him under control and end the fight, but fortunately a passing motorist stopped and assisted me in effecting the arrest.



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> MP is the same.
> 
> We are uniformed, and clearly identifiable to the public as a Police/Peace Officer and have a duty to act in events which life and limb are at risk. MPs are also afforded the same protections as if they were acting within their jurisdiction.



Interestingly, this brings us back to the 'behind the drunk driver' scenario. What is the difference in law or policy between a uniformed MP in a civilian area stepping in to stop an act of violence that they witness, versus pulling over a car being driven in a clearly dangerous manner?


----------



## Haggis (31 Jul 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> MP is the same.



Good to know.  In the vein of this discussion, I'm glad to see there aren't caveats attached to MP which would rule out acting in exigent circumstance, as would be the case here.



> Interestingly, this brings us back to the 'behind the drunk driver' scenario. What is the difference in law or policy between a uniformed MP in a civilian area stepping in to stop an act of violence that they witness, versus pulling over a car being driven in a clearly dangerous manner?



It would likely come down to the officer's ability to articulate the danger, as he perceived it, of the subject's driving (something that is lacking in R v Seguin) which could then fall under s. 249(1)(a) "Dangerous Driving".  In the case of a violent act, the perception of the act as violent (e.g. assault with a weapon, clear physical disparity) is as subjective as the perception of driving as dangerous, except under egregious circumstances (e.g. striking objects, persons etc.).  So, as you said, "clearly dangerous" driving could easily equate to "act of violence" in the eyes of the officer witnessing it.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (31 Jul 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this brings us back to the 'behind the drunk driver' scenario. What is the difference in law or policy between a uniformed MP in a civilian area stepping in to stop an act of violence that they witness, versus pulling over a car being driven in a clearly dangerous manner?



Both permitted by law and policy, so long as you're not hunting for it. 

The key factor is "public interest".

Is there public interest for an impaired driver to be stopped? Absolutely.


----------



## garb811 (31 Jul 2017)

A very timely article from the National Post that hammers home some of what we've been talking about WRT the Contraventions Act and the impacts, real and potential, of provinces not signing on.

Federal-provincial ticketing dispute puts government at legal risk, report warns, shared in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.



> A long-running dispute between some provinces and Ottawa means only parts of the country can hand out tickets for federal statutory offences, and internal justice department reports have repeatedly warned about the consequences of this “uneven” application of law.
> 
> The internal reports, written in 2010 and 2017, say that if ticketing agreements aren’t signed with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, it exposes the government to legal risk, exacerbates the trouble with court delays, and hampers the work of peace officers.
> ...


----------



## garb811 (31 Jul 2017)

I'm loving this thread as well.  Most times when I attempt to engage someone in the legalities of what we do as MP, the eyes glaze over and drool starts running out of the corner of their mouth...


----------



## trooper142 (31 Jul 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'm loving this thread as well.  Most times when I attempt to engage someone in the legalities of what we do as MP, the eyes glaze over and drool starts running out of the corner of their mouth...



I am very happy as well that this threat is going! It is providing very valuable information to help me in my role as an MP.

One thing though



> Both permitted by law and policy, so long as you're not hunting for it.
> 
> The key factor is "public interest".
> 
> Is there public interest for an impaired driver to be stopped? Absolutely.



We have been told by our local CoC that this is a dangerous maneuver. They stated that the symposium made it clear we were not to operate off jurisdiction, and doing so could result in admin penalties and lack of protection from criminal liability or a civil suit. The point was very clearly made that we have no legal obligation, and therefore we could literally drive by someone getting murdered, and if we did nothing; we would be legally protected. 

Another point was made that there was no legal basis for "public expectation". I'm sorry, but most average citizens in times of crisis aren't gonna look to a MP Cruiser and say "oh thats an MP they cant help; their off their jurisdiction" They are going to expect us to act; and suggesting otherwise is absurd.

It was suggested, what if we are in Tim Hortons grabbing lunch, on duty, within normal practice and someone attempts to rob the place with a firearm. The answer given was: We can not tell you not to act, but if you do, there may be consequences!

What kind of faith does that instill in the members belief that the Chain will look out for them?! How are we supposed to look to the chain for leadership and guidance, when their own answers are convoluted and noncommittal?

For most bases, this will never be an issue; but for bases like Ottawa, Montreal, Esquimalt  and Halifax (May be missing some) this is a real concern; considering they spend considerable time off of jurisdiction!

Obviously for most MPs this was unacceptable, and placed us between a Rock and a Hard Place; telling us if we intervene we may be up sh*ts creek, and if we don't, we may be up sh*ts creek.

They suggested we call the local police and ask permission to intervene in anticipation of their arrival.

I personally would rather lose my badge, than to ever have to live with myself knowing I could have prevented something dangerous or life threatening; and I know I'm not unique in this regard.


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Another point was made that there was no legal basis for "public expectation". I'm sorry, but most average citizens in times of crisis aren't gonna look to a MP Cruiser and say "oh thats an MP they cant help; their off their jurisdiction" They are going to expect us to act; and suggesting otherwise is absurd.


.In the eyes of Joe Public, if it look s like cop, walks like a cop, it's a cop. And they expect it to act like a cop.  This story, shared with the usual disclaimers, is a perfect example of this.  Citizen saw what looked like a cop and expected something to be done.



			
				trooper142 said:
			
		

> It was suggested, what if we are in Tim Hortons grabbing lunch, on duty, within normal practice and someone attempts to rob the place with a firearm. The answer given was: We can not tell you not to act, but if you do, there may be consequences!


Unless the perp is a completely clueless brain dead moron with zero situational awareness, as a uniformed "cop" you'd be under immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death if seen during the course of said robbery.  Then, s. 34(1) would kick in.


----------



## QV (1 Aug 2017)

I just glossed over this quickly so please excuse my ignorance if I'm off base ( no pun).

Back to the topic - the problem is MP in certain provinces are being told they are unable to act with the appropriate authority when responding to a mental health crisis on a defence establishment.  As the police of jurisdiction, the common law duty to protect life, reinforced by its own MP Gp order stipulating one MP duty is to "protect persons".. the situation to put it lightly is a cluster and contradictory.  

Failing to do your duty, even a duty at common law, that results in serious injury or death is criminal negligence.  If you are trained, equipped, employed to police, and there is no other police of jurisdiction, that means you have a duty to protect life.  Withdrawing and calling another police service to take over could potentially result in harm due to the delay, so could arresting a soldier inappropriately for a service offence when the real issue is a mental breakdown.  

This whole situation is simply a colossal failure of leadership and it needs to be sorted.


----------



## garb811 (1 Aug 2017)

Before I start answering some specifics, I'm going to again go over how it is MP "Peace Officer" status with regard to civilians is triggered.  

As per R v Nolan, our status as Peace Officer pursuant to Section 2.g.i. is absolute in that it is not limited geographically but it is limited to those members subject to the Code of Service Discipline.  That in itself has some complexities in that for a reservist, for instance, we are only automatically Peace Officers with regard to that individual while they are subject to the Code of Service Discipline.  When they aren't subject to the Code, we need a triggering mechanism because they are for all intents and purposes civilians. 

Also, as per R v Nolan, our status as Peace Officers in all other cases is via Section 2.g.ii. which reads:



> employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers; (agent de la paix)



For MP, that is via Queen's Regulations and Orders 22.011.  Note A to this QR&O is in concurrence with the Nolan ruling:



> (A) Members of the military police have the powers of peace officers under subparagraph (g)(i) of the definition “peace officer” in section 2 of the Criminal Code only with regard to a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. However, under subparagraph (g)(ii) of the same definition, members of the military police have the powers of peace officers with regard to all persons when performing any duty set out in article 22.011.



Read in isolation, 22.011 appears very broad:



> a. any lawful duty performed as a result of a specific order or established military custom or practice that is related to any of the following matters:
> i. the maintenance or restoration of law and order,
> ii. the protection of property,
> iii. the protection of persons,
> ...



It has to be read understanding the ruling in R v Nolan and R v Pile (which was quoted in Nolan) which specifies there were limitations on our unbridled status of Peace Officers at 2.g.i and that designation of Peace Officer did not make us super cops, with all under our authority as Peace Officers.  If that were the case, there would have been no need for 2.g.ii.

R v Nolan states:



> One issue must yet be resolved. Although the offence took place on a defence establishment, the actual detention of the accused occurred on a public highway after the military police had followed Mr. Nolan out of the gates of the base. The question arises whether the military police retained their status and authority as peace officers once they left C.F.B. Shearwater. On the particular facts of the instant case, I have no difficulty in concluding that they did. The accused was seen committing a traffic offence on the base. The officers only saw the accused as he was speeding out of the gates of the base and, in order to enforce the law, the military police officers had to follow Mr. Nolan off the base. There is absolutely no evidence that the accused attempted to evade the military police, so the circumstances do not really raise the issue of "hot pursuit". Given the instantaneous police warning to the accused to stop his vehicle and the detention immediately outside the gates of the base, there was such a clear nexus between the offence committed on the base and the detention off the base that I am convinced that the military police retained their status and authority as peace officers.



That has been interpreted to mean that in order for 2.g.ii. to be in effect, there must be a clear military nexus that meets the context of QR&O 22.011.  Policing the mean streets of downtown Wainwright does not meet that criteria simply because the MP is traveling from point A to point B on duty.


----------



## garb811 (1 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Very interesting, thanks. I'm surprised that the expectation would be to wipe their hands of it and clear scene, given that they will be the only ones with the driving evidence, may well be the ones to administer a roadside ASD, and will likely be the ones forming RPG to arrest... Given how quickly an impaired investigation can go (usually under ten minutes from initial stop, through an ASD fail if applicable, to arrest and breath demand), could your guys not easily find themselves with one in custody in the back of the car and the clock ticking to get those samples 'forthwith'?


Well...it's a good news bad news thing.  The bad news is, the actions MP are taking in that instance are not as a Peace Officer but rather as Joe Civilian.  So, MP off a Defence Establishment with no military nexus such as the vehicle having just left the Base and the stop occurs proximate, do not have the authority to read a breath demand because their Peace Officer status under 2.g.ii. over a civilian has not been triggered.  The expectation is not that MP will wash their hands of the incident, the reality is they are unable to independently complete the impaired driving investigation.  We would still make the MP available for testimony with regard to road evidence, spontaneous utterances, MVRS data etc to support the civilian police in the prosecution of the charge.



> I completely understand your guys aren't to be out 'hunting' for traffic stuff, that's fair. RCMP in Ottawa only recently have eased up on this too, though there's now a much greater acceptance of doing traffic work. It helps that there are federal parkways in Ottawa under the NCC, and that Ottawa based members will be traveling all over the city to check on embassies, residences, and other federal sites. There is a very strong argument to be made that  a modest contribution to municipal policing along those lines (which in this context Ottawa Police are fine with) also helps officers to keep up their basic road skills and officer safety skill, lest they atrophy over years of embassy watching. I have to imagine that in some locations MPs may face similar challenges in getting much experience dealing with different things...


We absolutely have that challenge in some places that are either dead slow, like Dundurn, or simply have zero actual patrolable area such as Chilliwack.



> Seguin is an interesting case. The impaired investigation itself did not fare well, but the verdict about common law authority to execute vehicle stops for the purposes of public safety was critical, particularly since the ON HTA does not give RCMP any statutory authority to use lights and sirens and pull someone over.  I can't say for sure how it will apply to you guys, but I would be surprised were it not informative.


Absolutely.  There are a whole bunch of lessons learned that a lot of MP would benefit from...well, any Peace Officer would benefit from.  



> EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read Seguin, and also read Nolan - I had not read that previously. Interesting, Seguin specifically engages Nolan as a comparable case. Seguin
> 
> My take? An MP proceeding directly from one military establishment to another for duty related purposes should clearly still be within the scope of their duties, similarly to how Nolan examined that issue for purposes of determining of Criminal Code peace officer status applied. I think the law would here find the border of an MP's peace officer' status under the criminal code. An MP on duty, engaged in the scope of routine MP duties and accepted military practice, should retain that peace officer status. In the event they were to _truly incidentally_ encounter a threat to public safety, such as a clearly dangerous driver, a violent act in progress, etc, I believe the common law authority discussed in Seguin would apply...


I disagree on this one.  The purpose of us moving along a city street is not to directly conduct any of the duties detailed in 22.011, rather it is for us to go from one area of jurisdiction to another.  So, on Defence Establishment A, our Peace Officer hat is on under 2.g.ii. because we are actively patrolling the Base for the purposes of the maintenance or restoration of law and order, we go off Base to move to Defence Establishment B our Peace Officer hat comes off as our duty is no longer maintenance or restoration of law and order but rather to go from A to B as it is well within the capability of the civilian police to maintain order and discipline and we haven't been called out in Aid of the Civil Power and as soon as we arrive on Defence Establishment B our Peace Officer hat goes back on because we are now back to patrolling the Base of puposes of the maintenance or restoration of law and order.



> Further to 'Hmmm..." MP in the circumstances I describe attempts a stop, and the driver takes off. Would the flight from police charge stick? If they fled (and let's assume here no pursuit - MP immediately pulls over and turns off their lights) and a few minutes later causes an accident, could liability fall ont he MP for attempting the stop? Or, MP finds themself behind a drunk driver (let's say in Ottawa, on the way from responding to a call at Uplands to the detachment at NDHQ via the Airport Parkway and Bronson to the 417), finds themselves behind the drunk driver on the parkway, sees numerous dangerous driving behaviours indicating impairment, follows, advises dispatch, who in turn advise OPS, who due to typical call volume take a few minutes to get a car rolling that way... As the car continues onto Bronson and traffic gets heavier, they blow a red light at Sunnyside and smoke a couple pedestrians crossing Bronson with the MP car directly behind watching the whole thing. What liability upon the CAF for the MP not initiating the traffic stop? What do you as the detachment sergeant tell them as their conscience rips them apart?


No, as MP weren't acting as a Peace Officer when initiating the stop, I doubt flight from police would stick.  They weren't making the stop as police, they were attempting to make the stop as someone who just happened to be legally driving a vehicle with police equipment.  

Yes, the MP would be liable for attempting the stop should that vehicle then end up in an accident.  In your not initiating a stop example, there would be no liability to DND but, yes, the member who didn't initiate the stop would be devastated and there really isn't anything you can say at that point because there really is no right answer here.  You are damned if you do if it goes wrong and damned if you don't and it goes wrong.  That is why it is so, so important for MP to fully understand their powers and authorities because at least when they are faced with that moral dilemma, they can make an informed choice.  In my career, I have made both choices based on my assessment of what the best course of action at that point in time was...

I am aware of cases where MP were off base fully in accordance with their duties and had Peace Officer status for that purpose, but because they intervened in issues that had no military nexus which resulted in them losing Peace Officer status. An example of that was a MP who was off base issuing a summons for an incident that had occurred on Base who then intervened in a fight where they got punched.  End result was, although Peace Officer status was there for the period they were issuing the summons, and if the person they were issuing the summons to had punched the MP, they would have been charged with Assaulting a Peace Officer, because there was no military nexus to the fight they intervened in, the Crown downgraded the charge to simple Assault.



> I completely understand why this subject would cause some MPs to shudder, but it's worth thinking and talking about.


Absolutely, unfortunately many MP do not want to listen to anything that they feel makes them less than a "real" cop.


----------



## garb811 (1 Aug 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We covered a similar "what if" regarding the authority of CBSA officer to act away from the Port of Entry.  In this scenario, a BSO (MP) is transiting between CBSA (DND) locations and observes a civilian police officer engaged in a struggle that he is quite clearly losing with no other civilian police assistance evident or in sight.  What authority does the BSO (MP) have to act in such circumstances using, if required, up to lethal force to protect the civilian cop from grievous bodily harm or death?  I know CBSA's position on this, but what is the MP position?


Real world event happened in the late 70s where 2 MP from NDHQ were driving down an Ottawa Street to get to a DND building.  Along the way they stumbled upon a Ottawa Police Officer who had been disarmed and the assailant was standing over the Ottawa officer pointing the gun at him.  MP intervened and ended up in a gun battle in downtown Ottawa.  End result was although NDHQ proper was not happy, the MP response was vindicated.  Brihard's post articulates why.



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> We are uniformed, and clearly identifiable to the public as a Police/Peace Officer and have a duty to act in events which life and limb are at risk. MPs are also afforded the same protections as if they were acting within their jurisdiction.


There is no special "duty" to act for MP other than the duty to act as per any other person nor are MP afforded any protection other than that afforded to anyone responding to that situation.  MP need to stop thinking that, its a hold over from a section of the MPTTP that should never have been written.  That is why it has not, and will not, be re-promulgated as a Group Order.

As I stated earlier in the thread, the ideas that there is a "duty to act", "public expectation" or anything else along those lines which give MP any kind of special authority or protection are simply untrue.


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> There is no special "duty" to act for MP other than the duty to act as per any other person...


.  "Acting" , on the part of anyone (MP, civilian) could be as simple and effective as "observe, report, avoid escalation and wait for the cavalry" as per the Windsor story involving the CBSA officer I noted earlier.  Remember, a member of the public sought him out to act as he "looked the part".  He did the proper, prudent thing given the totality of the situation.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> As I stated earlier in the thread, the ideas that there is a "duty to act", "public expectation" or anything else along those lines which give MP any kind of special authority or protection are simply untrue.



Yup - got that, but "public expectation" can lead the MP to believe they have a "duty to act" in order to meet that expectation.  The public - be it the spouse of a CAF member threatening self harm, or the civilian witnessing an assault proximate to a CFB - need to understand that "a cop is a cop is a cop" doesn't always apply.  That can put the MP in a very awkward and morally demanding situation where they want to do _something_, but can't. legally. Some other law enforcement partners share the same expectation and need to be set straight, unfortunately that usually occurs after the fact.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (1 Aug 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> As I stated earlier in the thread, the ideas that there is a "duty to act", "public expectation" or anything else along those lines which give MP any kind of special authority or protection are simply untrue.



I agree with the other sentiments expressed in that this has been an extremely interesting thread. It certainly has gotten away from the initial topic somewhat, but I've enjoyed reading it and have found it extremely informative.

I have to ask for clarification though. The statement I've quoted threw me for a bit of a loop. I'm looking at the situation(s) mentioned from a completely civilian perspective. (Meaning zero experience as a Peace Officer of any kind.). I'm taking into account the sources you've listed throughout the thread also. 

If I'm understanding things accurately, your point with that statement is that in terms of strictly black-and-white written policy there's nothing explicitly stating that a MP *must* intervene when not in their jurisdiction in any shape or form. But if MP decides to act strictly from a moral standpoint in any given situation (if in uniform) when not on a defence establishment, that's their own choice and they may or may not receive any sort of backing/support from NDHQ, correct?

I understand that they have a choice, but I think I'd find it difficult to swallow if I observed a uniformed MP witness some sort of emergency situation ANYwhere and didn't do anything to intervene in any way. In my mind that would reflect extremely negatively on the individual MP, the unit, the trade, etc. CAF tries to ensure a positive image across all areas as much as possible. This seems like a no-win all around... :-\


----------



## Habs (1 Aug 2017)

Garb - I'm not going to continue the belittlement on _both_ of our parts, especially since this thread is moving forward in a positive manner, and even more so since you and I are both random anonymous strangers on the internet and I really don't see the point in wasting the time. However, the basis of my posts were simply informing trooper that not all MPs were informed of the recent directive from the PM. We were never talking about the group orders. I do agree with some of what you said, and disagree with other parts. Is it an MPs duty to know the group orders? Of course. Is it the CoC's duty to inform their members when what they're doing (especially when they are the ones fully supporting the actions/files) is actually not correct? Of course. There is obviously a very large and dangerous disconnect somewhere, and the fact there's so much inconsistency is troublesome. As was pointed out in recent posts, there is not a definitive answer for a lot of things we are faced with, and are essentially told you are "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Anyway. Moving forward. Regardless of a MHA, there ARE things we can do.



> I can think of lots of ways to do that as well, all of them resulting in a Charter Breach for unlawful arrest or detention.



While there are ways to do it as you've described, there are ways to do it that are perfectly legal and in the realm of our powers. First off, MPs as peace officers have common law authority to preserve life. Secondly, (and I cannot remember the exact case law/description in the CC for it) but you can detain/arrest someone under breach of the peace S. 30/31 to either A) Immediately stop the breach and restore order or B) if you have reasonable grounds to believe a breach will occur if you do not act. Again, not the exact wording but close enough, I don't have a copy of the CC in front of me. So, if someone is walking around threatening to kill themselves, or comes into the detachment and says the same, you certainly can detain/arrest them and subsequently transport to hospital. Breach of the peace arrests/detainment also cover you for reasonable force to effect the arrest/detainment, and for resisting arrest. Remember, breach of the peace does not lead to charges, it's simply to prevent or stop a breach. 

Brihard - We never talked about provincial driving issues, as for your MHA situation, read above. Thanks for the tips.


----------



## trooper142 (1 Aug 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> There is obviously a very large and dangerous disconnect somewhere, and the fact there's so much inconsistency is troublesome.



You're very right Habs, there seems to be a disconnect; but the overwhelming pov here is that any action with respect to provincial law is unlawful, very simple. I'm not really sure what the point in arguing semantics is. You are now very aware of the limitations, so the ethical thing to do would be to follow what has been layed out. If you need more confirmation, I encourage you to bring this issue up with your chain of command, or even better your A/JAG and ask for clarification.



> Anyway. Moving forward. Regardless of a MHA, there ARE things we can do.
> 
> While there are ways to do it as you've described, there are ways to do it that are perfectly legal and in the realm of our powers. First off, MPs as peace officers have common law authority to preserve life. Secondly, (and I cannot remember the exact case law/description in the CC for it) but you can detain/arrest someone under breach of the peace S. 30/31 to either A) Immediately stop the breach and restore order or B) if you have reasonable grounds to believe a breach will occur if you do not act. Again, not the exact wording but close enough, I don't have a copy of the CC in front of me. So, if someone is walking around threatening to kill themselves, or comes into the detachment and says the same, you certainly can detain/arrest them and subsequently transport to hospital. Breach of the peace arrests/detainment also cover you for reasonable force to effect the arrest/detainment, and for resisting arrest. Remember, breach of the peace does not lead to charges, it's simply to prevent or stop a breach.
> 
> Brihard - We never talked about provincial driving issues, as for your MHA situation, read above. Thanks for the tips.



Ok, I'm again going to disagree. Although I think it's great you're attempting to find solutions to a complex issue, arresting someone for breach of peace and taking them to the hospital, is unlawful. It is very much a catch and release provision. If you are not charging them, you have to let them go, you have no lawful reason to keep them in your custody, let alone take them to the hospital against their will. Very much a charter breach! 

Even if you decide to charge them for a criminal offence, you can't compel them to the hospital from a criminal charge. Once RICE is met, you have to release them, simple.

This is very much similar to the suggestions by my chain; who suggested we call up their CO and have him/her order them to the hospital. You can't order them to see the doctor, the order is satisfied at the door of the hospital, and they are free to leave without risk of a service offence.

There is no way around the mental health provisions I can see, even with common law authority to protect life. I am with you, as I'm sure most MPs are, it makes our job more impossible than it already is, and it is a power we ought to have to properly do our jobs! 

This debate will continue to go on until there is enough political will to do something.


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> Garb - I'm not going to continue the belittlement on _both_ of our parts, especially since this thread is moving forward in a positive manner, and even more so since you and I are both random anonymous strangers on the internet and I really don't see the point in wasting the time. However, the basis of my posts were simply informing trooper that not all MPs were informed of the recent directive from the PM. We were never talking about the group orders. I do agree with some of what you said, and disagree with other parts. Is it an MPs duty to know the group orders? Of course. Is it the CoC's duty to inform their members when what they're doing (especially when they are the ones fully supporting the actions/files) is actually not correct? Of course. There is obviously a very large and dangerous disconnect somewhere, and the fact there's so much inconsistency is troublesome. As was pointed out in recent posts, there is not a definitive answer for a lot of things we are faced with, and are essentially told you are "damned if you do, damned if you don't."



I have seen no 'belittlement' from him. Rather, he's sharing his experience and insight. From your previous posts, you're I think 21? You've got something around a year qualified in trade, maybe a year and a half? He's been doing your job for over 30 years- more time in uniform than you have on this earth. He's not talking out of his ass, he's not being condescending, he simply has an incredible wealth of experience and insight that you simply have not yet had the opportunity to gain. I have to raise an eyebrow at you characterizing this as a 'waste of time'. The opportunity to pick the brain of someone so experienced in your job in a relaxed setting like this isn't something that should be squandered. You may not agree with him, but I'd contend that shouldn't stop you learning.



			
				habs said:
			
		

> Anyway. Moving forward. Regardless of a MHA, there ARE things we can do.
> 
> While there are ways to do it as you've described, there are ways to do it that are perfectly legal and in the realm of our powers. First off, MPs as peace officers have common law authority to preserve life. Secondly, (and I cannot remember the exact case law/description in the CC for it) but you can detain/arrest someone under breach of the peace S. 30/31 to either A) Immediately stop the breach and restore order or B) if you have reasonable grounds to believe a breach will occur if you do not act. Again, not the exact wording but close enough, I don't have a copy of the CC in front of me. So, if someone is walking around threatening to kill themselves, or comes into the detachment and says the same, you certainly can detain/arrest them and subsequently transport to hospital. Breach of the peace arrests/detainment also cover you for reasonable force to effect the arrest/detainment, and for resisting arrest. Remember, breach of the peace does not lead to charges, it's simply to prevent or stop a breach.
> 
> Brihard - We never talked about provincial driving issues, as for your MHA situation, read above. Thanks for the tips.



A breach is exactly what you've got - a charter breach. A breach of peace arrest can indeed pring someone briefly into custody, but you'd better have a plan and it better be lawful. What legal authority do you have to hold that prisoner? What legal authority do you have to convey them to a hospital? You aren't a medical professional, you aren't capable of assessing them medically, and even if you were the law gives you no power. You can call EMS, but he can simply refuse to talk to them. I beleive that you *have* arrested someone for breach of peace and they you *have* conveyed them to hospital, but if you've been doing that, someone higher in your chain has not been exercising proper oversight.

It absolutely sucks that you're in this spot. I have nothing but sympathy for you on that- the law is hamstringing you. I have a lot of involvement with mentally ill soldiers and vets, and MPs have made the save in a few of my calls with that. I'll be your first defender in saying you guys should have these powers under provincial MHA. But you don't. You are putting yourself at considerable risk of legal liability. As I mentioned earlier, you will learn in time that there's always more room under the bus. Your enthusiasm is good, but there's only so far you can go in articulating points of law until you hit things they don't actually say or do. Breach of the peace gives you no ability to bring someone to hospital. In fact if you're arresting someone under S.30/31 C.C. powers and you have no specific authority from the NDA in the case of a mental health call, I would suspect you will quickly find yourself running beyond where you retain peace officer status per Nolan. At that point you're just a dude with a guy trapped in the back of your car on the way to hospital.

If circumstances still find you arresting someone for breach of the peace, I would suggest in the strongest terms that you get them into the custody of the police of jurisdiction ASAP, and convey your grounds tso that that officer with provincial powers can turn your breach of the peace arrest into an MHA apprehension. It may be a bit embarassing, but that is the *legal* way to do this, that ensures you're protected. Good luck with the inquiry if you breach of peace a guy, and on the way to hospital you get in an accident...


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It may be a bit embarrassing _*the first time*_, but that is the *legal* way to do this, that ensures you're protected.



FTFY.

MP aren't the only federal LEA with jurisdictional limitations (i.e. Railway Police - 500 metre radius of any railway owned or administered property).  The trick is ensuring that the police of criminal jurisdiction are aware of and understand the jurisdictional limitations and assist the MP in working within them.


----------



## Habs (1 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I have seen no 'belittlement' from him. Rather, he's sharing his experience and insight. From your previous posts, you're I think 21? You've got something around a year qualified in trade, maybe a year and a half? He's been doing your job for over 30 years- more time in uniform than you have on this earth. He's not talking out of his ***, he's not being condescending, he simply has an incredible wealth of experience and insight that you simply have not yet had the opportunity to gain. I have to raise an eyebrow at you characterizing this as a 'waste of time'. The opportunity to pick the brain of someone so experienced in your job in a relaxed setting like this isn't something that should be squandered. You may not agree with him, but I'd contend that shouldn't stop you learning.
> 
> *What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.*
> 
> ...


----------



## BeyondTheNow (1 Aug 2017)

> I have seen no 'belittlement' from him. Rather, he's sharing his experience and insight. From your previous posts, you're I think 21? You've got something around a year qualified in trade, maybe a year and a half? He's been doing your job for over 30 years- more time in uniform than you have on this earth. He's not talking out of his ***, he's not being condescending, he simply has an incredible wealth of experience and insight that you simply have not yet had the opportunity to gain. I have to raise an eyebrow at you characterizing this as a 'waste of time'. The opportunity to pick the brain of someone so experienced in your job in a relaxed setting like this isn't something that should be squandered. You may not agree with him, but I'd contend that shouldn't stop you learning.
> 
> What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.
> 
> ...



Okay Habs, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you simply aren't grasping how your posting comes across in general--in this thread and elsewhere. You are rife with defensiveness, arrogance and have resorted to name-calling on more than one occasion. (Just because you edited something out before another user quoted the post doesn't mean we didn't see it.) 

You have no issue with doling out tone, but if you get called out on it or another user attempts to correct you in any fashion in return, you seem incapable of self-reflection on why it might be happening. 

I was pleasant before. This time I am being extremely firm. Your reply to Garb (as much as I believe you _thought_ you attempted to be productive) fell extremely short. Your reply to Brihard showed you are extremely unaware of how you are perceived. 

Start absorbing information and learning from those around you. Put your ego aside. Humbleness goes a long way.


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2017)

Habs said:
			
		

> What is this? Are we turning this into a "I was born before you, my uniform is more faded, your posts are irrelevant?" I'm trying to move on and push the discussion forward, why you choose to bring age into this is beyond me. It's not relevant to the discussion. I, and I'm sure you, have worked with people who are older and more experienced but make the wrong decisions. Where have I said he doesn't have experience and knowledge? Where have I said I have more than him? No where. The discussion itself is not a waste of time. What is a waste of time, is exactly that paragraph you just wrote doing nothing more than causing negativity and hindering a discussion moving forward.



No. You are taking something personally that was not personal. I did not say what you put in quotes. Rather I was trying to contextualize, in a way meaningful to you, just how much experience Garb has in the subject we're talking about. I did not say you don't know anything because of your age. I merely pointed out that he has been an MP far longer than you - or I - have been alive. I feel that's relevant in credibility. Taking offense is not serving you well. Yes, I have worked with older, more experienced people who were out to lunch- but in this case every single thing he has said has rung of good sense and subject matter expertise. 



			
				Habs said:
			
		

> There you go, something that is moving the discussion forward and not basing someone's post off of their age/experience which you've got from anonymous posts on an internet forum. I've been saying that all along, that the CoC is not exercising proper oversight. I'm glad you've finally acknowledged it.



You have been very open about your age and experience in this internet forum. I have merely taken you at face value, and assumed you have been up front with us on this page about when you joined, how old you were at the time, and when you CTed into the MPs. Again, taking offense where none is offered serves you poorly. I hope you have a thicker skin than this on the job.



			
				Habs said:
			
		

> Holding him/her? Preventing the repetition of the offence. Transporting to hospital? That's more tricky as you've pointed out.



Repetition of what offense? There is no offense present or alleged, a breach of the peace is not an enumerated offense. That matters. You're getting S.30 and S.495 arrest / 497 release authorities mixed up. In theory you're suggesting that as an MP you can essentially detain someone indefinitely under S.30 as long as you think they're going to hypothetically breach the peace by attempting suicide. That of course is not the case- so where's the line drawn? This also does not address the gap between a 'right now' / imminent breach of the peace - because we can't 'minority report' this one - and the actual MHA provisions (I'll use Alberta's but most are very much the same) that allow an officer's apprehension if a person by virtue of mental disorder is "likely to cause harm to the person or others or to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment,"

A person can easily be suicidal and at the point where an MHA apprehension can happen, yet they are not acting in such a way as to justify a S.31 arrest for breach of peace. As for the transporting part- that's not really tricky. You're trying to be tricky in justifying something the law does not allow you to do, but it's not tricky at all. You just do it correctly, which necessarily means you don't do it yourself. If a person voluntarily consents to go to hospital, and if you've made it clear that they're free to go, that you're offering a ride but they needn't take it, and they say "sure, I'll take the ride, thanks", you're in the clear, but you need to be bloody sure that a hard look would not conclude that you still have that person detained in a manner that's not lawful.




			
				Habs said:
			
		

> Interesting though. So, an arrest or detainment for breach of the peace, and then transferring custody to an officer with provincial jurisdiction/powers, who can then transport him/her to hospital, sounds like it ticks all of the checks in the box. I don't see how this could come back to bite the MP or the civilian officer. That sounds like the best bet moving forward. But of course, if you have the member in custody and he/she says they will go voluntarily to the hospital after they've (hopefully) had some time to change their mind on how they are approaching the situation, that also works.



If by 'ticks in the box' you mean 'compliant with the law', then yes, it's the best way moving forward and is what detachment leadership should be enforcing. The breach of peace arrest for suicidality is on rocky enough ground as is, but I can see circumstances where it's justifiable for a brief detention pending transfer of custody. Of course, as soon as that member 'changes their mind' or no longer presents as acutely, imminently, actively suicidal, you lose any 'breach of peace' grounds you have for ongoing detention to any extent. 

No question about it dude. You guys are not in a good spot vis a vis suicidal people for whom you have no explicit statutory powers under NDA. Not an enviable spot. But you can only work with what you've got.

Out of curiosity, do you guys get trained in ASIST or MHFA or something analogous as part of your basic trades training or shortly thereafter? I have both, and have found both to be quite useful in the (at times lengthy) talking phase of a person in mental health crisis... I hope you guys get good suicide intervention and deescalation training to help putty the gap not filled by your legal powers...


----------



## hammond (2 Aug 2017)

As others have mentioned, this has been a very insightful thread!

I wonder, could this issue be rectified if there was a section of the NDA written paralleling what is contained in the Provincial MHA to provide MP's with the authority to arrest/detain CAF members who are emotionally disturbed and deliver them to a treatment facility for assessment? Understandably, this would only pertain to those subject to the CSD, but could this not rectify the issue nationally for the primary customers of the MPs? Of course as has been mentioned earlier for other legislative changes, this will take a lot of political power to push through and action.

Thoughts?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (3 Aug 2017)

I had no idea that MP's were hamstrung like this. Hopefully something changes in the future to kind of streamline the job of the MP..

Informative discussion.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Aug 2017)

Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".

Note that my knowledge of Service Discipline is only an inch deep -- I've done Unit Disciplinary Investigations and Summary Investigations, and I've been an Ops O, but I am absolutely not an expert, and I constantly seek the advice of experts. And I acknowledge that I'm missing some knowledge in this case.


----------



## Haggis (4 Aug 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".



NDA s 98 requires the "intent thereby to render himself .....unfit for service".  Pretty hard to establish specific intent at the scene unless the victim articulates it.

Second, NDA s 158(1) sets certain conditions for retention in custody which equate to what is colloquially known as the *RICE* rules, which were mentioned in an earlier post.  In short RICE stands for:

R = Is there a likelihood the offence will be *R*epeated?  If no; then
I = Can the *I*dentity of the accused be established?  If yes; then
C =is the accused likely to appear in *C*ourt? if yes; then
E =Is there a need to protect or preserve *E*vidence which can only be met by retention in custody? 

If all those conditions are met, under either the NDA or the CC, the arrestee must be released.


----------



## trooper142 (4 Aug 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Agreed, this is quite an informative discussion. I do have one question, though, because I'm clearly missing something important. For the specific task of dealing with a member who is at risk of self-harm, why does it need provincial mental health act coverage? Isn't this a service offence that the member should be arrested for, to prevent the occurrence of said service offence? NDA 98 is "Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another".
> 
> Note that my knowledge of Service Discipline is only an inch deep -- I've done Unit Disciplinary Investigations and Summary Investigations, and I've been an Ops O, but I am absolutely not an expert, and I constantly seek the advice of experts. And I acknowledge that I'm missing some knowledge in this case.



Arresting them, fine; but then what? We still don't have the authority at that point to transport them to a medical facility against their will. Not to mention civilians (often 
dealing with them more than members!) Arresting someone who clearly needs medical help is not the solution.

The mental health act allows police to lawfully transport an individual to a medical facility to be assessed when it is the judgement of the police that they intend to harm themselves (among other things).

We, as MP, currently have an incomplete toolbox to carry out our duties. That is what this comes down to; MP having the authority and legal protections to help our members and members of the public in their time of need!

*edit* although we have no primary ability to act as peace officers and transport under the respective mental health act; there is an ability to detain that person for their safety; call a peace officer who has provincial status and tell them what's happening and if they ask you to take that person to the hospital for assessment, you are legally required to; as per sec 129 of the Criminal Code which states:

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction. 

Although this may be an interim solution to address the gap in the short term; the long term solution is clearly provincial recognition of Military Police in some way or another.


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2017)

Regarding, "MP struggle to enforce mental health laws"  

I'm not an MP. I'm not familiar with Mental Health Acts outside Ontario.

But, I would like to share some statistics regarding police apprehensions under the Ontario Mental Health Act ( OMHA ) that I found of interest.

Toronto Police only made 520 OMHA apprehensions in 1997. 
( Considering Toronto has about 5,235 Police Officers, that was only about one OMHA apprehension for every ten officers. ) 
Back then, and as far back as I can remember ( 1972 ), OMHA apprehensions by police in Toronto were very infrequent, and only made as a last resort.

In 2013 - the last year I have seen statistics - Toronto Police made 8,441 OMHA apprehensions.
( OMHA apprehensions had increased to about one-and-a-half per officer. ) 

Hospital wait times for individuals under OMHA apprehension are a concern because mental illness complaints typically score a Canadian Triage Acuity Scale ( CTAS ) 3. ( CTAS 1 is highest priority. CTAS 5 is lowest. )  

CTAS 3 can involve lengthy hospital wait times for police. Which means they are not able to respond to other calls in the community.

This may, or may not, be of interest to the discussion,

Toronto Police Service
POLICE ENCOUNTERS WITH PEOPLE IN CRISIS
July 2014

QUOTE

Emergency room transfer of care procedures

In addition to wasting scarce police resources, these extended delays aggravate the stigma associated with mental health issues by forcing individuals to wait under police supervision, often in handcuffs.

In certain divisions, the average emergency department wait time is in excess of two hours. The Review was told that wait times can stretch up to eight hours. The Human Services Justice Coordinating Committee Ontario has also reported two to eight hour waits for police officers in emergency departments. Regrettably, these long wait times can create a disincentive for police to bring people in crisis into the mental health system for treatment.

The stigma of being seated in an ER under police guard, often in restraints, adds to the stress of the situation.

END QUOTE

To reduce police wait times in hospitals, Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams (MCIT) now act as "second responders". 
MCITs allow Primary Response Units to remain in service for calls in the community.


----------



## trooper142 (4 Aug 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding, "MP struggle to enforce mental health laws"
> 
> I'm not an MP. I'm not familiar with Mental Health Acts outside Ontario.
> 
> ...



Interesting statistics, and I'm not entirely surprised. In my own experience, I have only had one case where it took a lot of convincing to get the individual to go to the hospital, most go voluntarily. The argument is not that they happen frequently; the argument is that when they do happen, we need to have the tools to fulfill our primary mandate; preservation of life.

It is better to have a tool and not need it; than to need a tool and not have it.

I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".



I'm not an MP, and did not make an argument about anyone's authority, or lack of. I hope you did not take it that way.

I simply wanted to point out that the number of OMHA apprehensions, in the city I was familiar with, ( it may vary across Ontario and Canada ) has risen dramatically over the years. 

Also, to perhaps consider some possible solutions, such as MCIT, to deal with the increase in OMHA apprehensions, and reduce hospital ( Toronto alone has 16 psychiatric emergency departments ) wait times for police. So they can get back in service to the community ASAP.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Aug 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Interesting statistics, and I'm not entirely surprised. In my own experience, I have only had one case where it took a lot of convincing to get the individual to go to the hospital, most go voluntarily. The argument is not that they happen frequently; the argument is that when they do happen, we need to have the tools to fulfill our primary mandate; preservation of life.
> 
> It is better to have a tool and not need it; than to need a tool and not have it.
> 
> I reject the argument "well it doesnt seem to be happening all that often, so whats the point in having this authority".



Evolving into an interesting discussion.  Like others, I will preface by stating I'm not, nor have I ever been, an MP or any other type of LEO.  I agree that those who do the job need the appropriate tools even if it is an infrequent occurrence.

However, on the matter of statistics, are there any available about the interaction of MPs with those presenting with mental health issues?  Do the MP keep such statistics?  Are their workload statistics (I assume they, like almost every other agency, accumulate and correlate such) able to be broken down into the reason for contacts with individuals?

I imagine this is nothing new, though it is likely that the requirement for involuntary admission to mental health services has probably risen in the military community just as it has in the wider population, however to a lower percentage.  As a reminder, the various provincial Mental Health Acts, deal with much more than the authority of police to apprehend individuals requiring psych assessment and hold; it also delineates the requirements of individual physicians, "designated" facilities, and to some extent courts among others.

It has been many years since I've personally been involved in situations that required the apprehension of individuals needing to be placed on a psych hold.  Back in the day when medics used to make actual ambulance calls to the PMQs (both overseas and in Canada) it was not unheard of for the MPs to get the medics to respond when it was necessary to physically restrain an individual due to a mental health issue.  While I can't remember under what authority we would have involuntarily admitted an individual (dependant/civilian especially when we were in Germany) it was one of those info items that I kept in my personal SOP references when I was a hosp adm later in my career, though the only time that I specifically recall dealing with a military patient under an Ontario Mental Health Act hold was an individual I escorted from NDMC to a designated facility in Windsor when he was released from the CF (that was in the 1980s).  Perhaps someone more current with how the CFMS (or whatever you call yourself these days) view this issue can chime in.


----------



## trooper142 (4 Aug 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm not an MP, and did not make an argument about anyone's authority, or lack of. I hope you did not take it that way.
> 
> I simply wanted to point out that the number of OMHA apprehensions, in the city I was familiar with, ( it may vary across Ontario and Canada ) has risen dramatically over the years.
> 
> Also, to perhaps consider some possible solutions, such as MCIT, to deal with the increase in OMHA apprehensions, and reduce hospital ( Toronto alone has 16 psychiatric emergency departments ) wait times for police. So they can get back in service to the community ASAP.



I didn't think you were arguing against increased MP authority, I've just heard that argument circulating over the last few weeks and it can be a bit frustrating!

As I said, I have personally dealt with 3 instances of mental health in one year, with one requiring more pressure to get them to go voluntarily. That is not to mention the 10 I know of, from the base I work at. All within the last year.

As for the amount of times we would require this power; I can't imagine it would be very frequent, but it would be preferable to begging with the subject and hoping they are not too far down the rabbit hole!

I think it's interesting to note that as a professional police organization, the MPs have only really been a true police service for 6 years or so! So as an organization of course there are growing pains! What is not acceptable in my view, is reinventing the wheel when other services have already been through this, we can learn best practice from them and adapt our policies accordingly!


----------



## putz (4 Aug 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Evolving into an interesting discussion.  Like others, I will preface by stating I'm not, nor have I ever been, an MP or any other type of LEO.  I agree that those who do the job need the appropriate tools even if it is an infrequent occurrence.
> 
> However, on the matter of statistics, are there any available about the interaction of MPs with those presenting with mental health issues?  Do the MP keep such statistics?  Are their workload statistics (I assume they, like almost every other agency, accumulate and correlate such) able to be broken down into the reason for contacts with individuals?
> 
> ...



I do not have the link handy, however, the Provost Marshal does put out an annual report breaking down population served, types of calls for service, crimes etc.


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2017)

putz said:
			
		

> I do not have the link handy, however, the Provost Marshal does put out an annual report breaking down population served, types of calls for service, crimes etc.



Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Report - Fiscal Year 2015-2016
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-cfpm-annual-reports/2015-2016-fiscal-cfpm-annual-report.page


----------

