Author Topic: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws  (Read 16408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« on: July 27, 2017, 09:41:39 »
Interesting article.  And, I'm floored to see who's the CFPM now, I remember him waaaay back when at Shearwater.  Getting old....

Quote
Military cops struggle to enforce mental health laws

MPs had to call local officers for help 10 times over 18 months in Western Canada

By Murray Brewster, CBC News  Posted: Jul 27, 2017 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Jul 27, 2017 5:51 AM ET

One night in early May, a troubled soldier wandered into the military police detachment in Edmonton and laid out a detailed plan to kill himself.

Instead of taking the person immediately into custody and conveying him to hospital, the officers were obliged to call the RCMP to the base so they could take charge.

The man, at one point, tried to leave while they were waiting and the MPs were reduced to pleading with him to stay.

'We don't have the same authorities as a provincial constable.'

— Brig.-Gen. Rob Delaney

The Mounties arrived in time and the soldier was taken to hospital.

It is a dramatic illustration of the conundrum facing military cops, who have authority over Criminal Code violations but cannot enforce specific provincial laws across the country, even on Canadian Forces bases. In those instances they are required to call in outside law enforcement, sometimes in a crisis.


'We're dealing with Canadian citizens who have certain rights and freedoms.'

— Tom Stamatakis, Canadian Police Association

The example was one of 10 startling cases — most of them involving mental health — which have taken place since the beginning of last year within the jurisdiction of 1 Military Police Regiment, the unit responsible for Western Canada.

Names and specific locations were scrubbed out of records released to CBC News, which requested the details after a series of internal federal documents surfaced which demonstrate rising concern about what's being called "a serious limitation" on military police officers (MPs).

Not only does enforcement of certain provincial health statutes fall outside their authority, so do certain mundane traffic safety provisions, such as roadside licence suspensions in drunk driving cases.

Commanders worried

The jurisdictional issue, which was flagged last year in records obtained by CBC News under Access to Information legislation, made its way up from frontline MPs in Edmonton to both the commander of the Canadian Army and the military's provost marshal.

While the limited authority of military cops is a problem from coast to coast, it is particularly acute in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the territories.

Those provinces and jurisdictions do not recognize a piece of federal legislation known as the Contraventions Act, which allows MPs to deal with certain offenses.

The limitations are stark and have come to light as the military deals with more mental health cases and suicides.

"My main concern is the inability of MPs to enforce the provincial Mental Health Act, which allows for the arrest of individuals in order to bring them to a medical facility, under reasonable and probable grounds that the person is likely to cause self-harm or harm others," said Brig.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, in a Jan. 29, 2016 memo. He was, at the time, commander of the 3rd Canadian Division in Edmonton, but has since been promoted to be the deputy commander of military personnel in Ottawa.

"While there are other options available in crisis situations, none are as effective as an arrest by the MP under the Mental Health Act. I consider this an area that needs to be addressed without delay."

His plea won the support of Lt.-Gen. Marquis Haines, who was at the time commander of the army.

"The importance of providing Military Police with as much of their enforcement jurisdiction as possible is clear," Haines wrote in an April 13, 2016 memo. "There are practical challenges associated with simply leaving these matters to local police."

Depending upon the circumstance and rank, MPs can hold a member of the military under the National Defence Code of Service Discipline (CSD), but they need a medical doctor to provide an assessment.

It gets more complicated when you factor in civilians, including family members on military bases. 

"MPs cannot arrest civilians not subject to the CSD unless there is a criminal code offence," said a backgrounder attached to Eyer's memo. "Statements indicating self harm are not enough justification for arrest.  Another police agency capable of enforcing the Mental Health Act, such as the RCMP, would be required to arrest and bring the individual to a medical facility."

Legislative fix?

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.

When they have encountered those situations, Delaney said they have been able to talk their way through, but rank-and-file MPs are particularly concerned about being hamstrung.

"It is frustrating for them to have to rely on other agencies to do something that they see very clearly is within their abilities and their training," he said.

One solution would be to have each province specifically name military police as designated officers under their laws, but Delaney says that has a side effect.

It raises questions about what sort of enforcement powers MPs would have — both on and off base.

And, more importantly, who would conduct oversight reviews in case of misconduct or complaint? Would it be the province or the federal Military Police Complaints Commission?

Mixed feelings

One former military family that's had extensive dealings with military police said they have mixed feelings about expanded powers.

"I come at it from a very emotional point of view," said Sheila Fynes, whose son Cpl. Stuart Langridge committed suicide. The handling of his case by military police was the subject of a scathing public inquiry report.

"Maybe they do need that authority, but with that comes a clear understanding of when that authority is to be used — or not used. If a soldier is really in dire need of help, I don't care if it's the person next door that gets them to hospital, it just needs to happen."

Fynes and her husband Sean, who have been outspoken critics of the military justice system, say along with expanded authority there should be specific, better training of military police in the provincial laws they would enforce.

They also say there needs to be oversight to prevent potential misconduct from being swept under the rug.

Expectations of citizens

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said "from an efficiency perspective" it makes sense for MPs to deal with cases involving their own people on their own turf, but when it comes to civilians and potential enforcement powers off bases, more discussion is needed.

"There are a lot of issues that would need to be addressed, right from accountability, transparency to interaction with the public," said Stamatakis. "We're dealing with Canadian citizens who have certain rights and freedoms and expectations around enforcement."

A spokesman for Alberta's Attorney General's department said the province is aware of the concerns of military police, but made no promises.

"We are engaged in discussions with the federal government about the Contraventions Act," Jason van Rassel said in an email. "We have been in contact with the federal government regarding the Military Police's authority to enforce provincial statutes in Alberta."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-police-provinces-1.4223219


Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,200
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2017, 12:27:31 »
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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 488,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,876
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2017, 13:23:54 »
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/index.php?topic=125141.0;nowap
OP: "Saw this today, and immediately I wondered if it meant the beginning of recognition for MP's in Ontario."

Offline Habs

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2017, 18:09:15 »
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.

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2017, 18:25:30 »
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

Offline Habs

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2017, 18:28:42 »
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."

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2017, 18:41:15 »
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

Offline Habs

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2017, 18:57:57 »
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.

Because it's nation wide, given to all MPs

Obviously not. Probably an AF/A/N CoC thing.

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)

That's nothing new. We get told that all the time.

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.

Again, not a nationwide thing.

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!

Agreed.


Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2017, 19:53:31 »
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

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?

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 488,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,876
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2017, 08:06:17 »
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"

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,200
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2017, 13:00:37 »

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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 429,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,092
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2017, 13:26:30 »
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!
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Inspir

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 229
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2017, 14:37:01 »
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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2017, 14:40:53 by Inspir »

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2017, 14:48:34 »
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.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,200
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2017, 17:09:48 »
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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2017, 18:17:42 »
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.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,200
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2017, 18:23:07 »
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...
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline devil39

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 613
  • Ex-Army Guy
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2017, 18:59:02 »
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.

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Has been
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,231
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Retired!
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2017, 19:09:48 »
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/index.php/topic,4577.800.html

The process is not the mission.

Offline Habs

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2017, 20:44:22 »
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.

Offline Inspir

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 229
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2017, 21:16:09 »
Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.

Tried and failed, miserably. Decades ago...
« Last Edit: July 28, 2017, 21:30:03 by Inspir »

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 488,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,876
    • The job.
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2017, 21:30:39 »
Contract the base/city policing stuff out to city cops, RCMP, Provincial Police, etc.

"Replace base MP with RCMP"
http://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=29313.0;nowap
13 pages.

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2017, 21:41:44 »
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.

 

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,377
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2017, 23:59:45 »
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".

Quote
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.

When they have encountered those situations, Delaney said they have been able to talk their way through, but rank-and-file MPs are particularly concerned about being hamstrung.

"It is frustrating for them to have to rely on other agencies to do something that they see very clearly is within their abilities and their training," he said.

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

Quote
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.

19.              On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2  of the Criminal Code  is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code  within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2  could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2  of the Criminal Code  as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge. In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires. The assessment of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  is, of course, subject to different considerations. See Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

20.              I would therefore conclude that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2  of the Criminal Code  serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority.

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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 00:24:58 by garb811 »

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,377
Re: MP struggle to enforce mental health laws
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2017, 01:16:37 »
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.