MP struggle to enforce mental health laws

[Inspir]

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

Tried and failed, miserably. Decades ago...

 

[mariomike]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

 

[garb811]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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

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.

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?