Canada military police watchdog seeks greater authority to investigate complaints

The Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada (the “Commission”), an independent civilian military police watchdog, released its 2025 annual report on Tuesday, as it calls for legislation authorizing additional powers to the body and removal of barriers that continue to impede its ability to effectively oversee the Canadian military police.

The Commission has alleged continued lack of accountability on the part of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) for the shortcomings identified in military police investigations noting that the CFPM has declined 32.2% of the Commission’s recommendations. Although this rate of decline is an improvement from the 2024 decline rate of 44.4%, the Commission stated that the consistent refusal to fully implement the Commission’s recommendations continues to raise concerns about the overall responsiveness to oversight of military police. Some of the rejected recommendations concerned such areas as training programs in detention, deescalation, conflict management and provision of victim services in high risk situations; and improvement of management and protection of police notes.

According to the Commission, a liberal interpretation of its mandate by the CFPM has continued to negatively impact the oversight framework established by parliament. The annual report also highlighted an escalation in oversight barriers from procedural resistance previously to “outright refusal to comply” more recently.

Calling on lawmakers to equip the Commission with the tools it requires hold military police powers to account in a “meaningful and effective way,” Commission Chairperson Tammy Tremblay stated:

Most of the concerns I raise in this report are not directed at individual military police officers, but rather at leadership and systemic issues that shape police accountability and culture…

Ultimately, institutions are judged not only by the professionalism of their members, but by how they respond to scrutiny, especially in difficult moments. When harm has occurred, when lives have been lost, or when systemic issues are identified, the response cannot be silence or retreat into legalism. Independent civilian oversight is not a threat. It is a pillar of trust and a cornerstone of democracy…

While the MPCC continues to work collaboratively with stakeholders and to address issues through individual investigations, public interest proceedings, and litigation, it is increasingly clear that certain barriers are rooted in the legislative framework itself.

This is the third consecutive year the Commission has sought additional powers noting that significant challenges remain. In 2024 and 2025, the Commission submitted comprehensive packages of legislative proposals to strengthen independent civilian oversight of military police. The said proposals were partially based on recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish.

Canadian military police and the CFPM have faced increasing criticism in recent years amidst allegations of widespread incompetence or even outright interference with investigations with tactics as egregious as tampering with evidence and shutting down of police actions before they could even be heard. Such actions are in direct contravention of the rule of law.

The Commission opened 212 new files in 2025, of which 72 new conduct complaints, and issued 12 final reports addressing allegations of military police misconduct or interference in military police investigations. The Commission conducted eight public interest investigations in 2025 into such serious matters as sexual misconduct, arson, and even attempted murder. Two public interest hearings were convened involving military police readiness, response to situations involving vulnerable individuals, use of force, and racial profiling.

Recognizing the dedication and professionalism of many individual military police personnel, the Commission notes that its request for legislative reforms is not radical, but practical and necessary and “in line with best practices in Canadian police oversight.”