National Defence Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Lamarre, it's good to see you again. Thank you for being with us with your team.

Thank you, all, for your service to our nation.

My questions are going to fall under the broad rubric of women and peace and security. I say this with respect to both promoting the project within the armed forces and members who currently serve, but also as a way to recruit more women into the armed forces, including international service and peacekeeping missions.

I wanted to ask if you've had a chance to review the ombudsperson's report. It's the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and there's probably room for a name change there. Heidi Illingworth is the ombudsperson and she made recommendations on Bill C-77 this month.

Has this document been shared with members of your team?

[LGen Charles Lamarre]

I haven't personally reviewed that document. I'm not sure if my colleagues have.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

There's one specific point, and if you haven't had a chance to review it, I'd be curious if you could submit your views to the committee in the coming days. The recommendation I'm most interested in is her recommendation number six, which goes to division 1.1 in the bill, the declaration of victims' rights.

She recommends that we consider an appeal mechanism and the identification of an oversight body with statutory powers to review such appeals related to infringements or denials of victims' rights to ensure the effective oversight and enforcement of victims' rights.

Her main argument is that it's great that we have division 1.1. She points out that it's incredibly important to encourage women, especially, to consider the Canadian Armed Forces as a career option, but that unless there's some enforceability of these victims' rights through an appeal mechanism, they would ring hollow. They would be declaratory, and there would be no way to apply them.

I understand you haven't had a chance to review her report, but as a general principle, would the department be open to considering some sort of a mechanism that would introduce an option to appeal? If a decision is taken that takes insufficient account of a victim's rights, then could there be a way to correct it?

[LGen Charles Lamarre]

At this point, all I can actually say is that we'll take it back and have a look at it. We'd have to see the entire context to be able to understand what that might mean.

For the most part, we have methods of appeal for just about everything. If a person feels they've had a wrong done to them, there is an appeal process that applies and it should be followed up there. Oftentimes it's nested in the chain of command. They can actually go up and say, “You know what? I didn't get a chance to get this or that,” and then they have a chance to go all the way up, including to the CDS.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'd be very grateful if I could ask for an undertaking to review the legislation with an eye on potentially existing appeals mechanisms. Sometimes there's a need to kick them up to too high a level. It might be easier to have something that's at a lower level. It might be more expeditious, the main point being that if there's a bill of rights that's not enforceable, they're really just paper rights rather than real rights.

[LGen Charles Lamarre]

We'll undertake to do that, then, and come back.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Colonel Strickey.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I'll just jump in, sorry.

As you're well aware, in the bill the proposed subsection 71.22(1) is the complaint mechanism section. To your point, and I think we may have addressed this during the last committee meeting, the provisions that are outlined in the current proposed legislation mirror sections 25 to 29 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I will cite 71.22(2), complaint mechanisms, in which regulations that will be made by the Governor in Council could, among other things, provide for three things: the review of complaints involving alleged infringements under the declaration of victims' rights in this bill; the power to make recommendations to remedy such infringements; and the obligation to notify those victims of the result of those reviews.

Again, the principle behind that particular section is a mirror of the current legislation found in the Victims Bill of Rights.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

The procedural gap, if there is one, might be to connect division 1.1 with proposed new subsection 71.22(2) through some sort of reference that this would be the mechanism under which the review would take place.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

Yes, sir.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. That's super helpful. Thank you for that.

I also wanted to ask you about two mechanisms that I think are particularly important for women serving in the Canadian Forces today and women contemplating the Canadian Forces as a career. Those are the right to protection and the right to restitution. The right to protection, in common language, would be a restraining order.

Can you comment on the way this is currently being done pre-Bill C-77 if somebody needs to be protected from another member of the armed forces and what Bill C-77 adds?

The same is true for the right to financial restitution. How significant is that? Is that entirely new legal turf through Bill C-77?

I have about two minutes remaining.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

In terms of restitution, I think we were asked that question. I believe you asked that question, actually, on the aspect of restitution.

If you give me one—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

There wasn't a clear sense at the time whether this was numerically significant—

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I'll let Colonel Lortie fill in the gaps, but generally speaking vis-à-vis restitution, since restitutions have been allowed.... You may recall that on September 1, 2018, through Bill C-15, the restitution provision was brought into force. Since then, five courts martial have been completed. None featured a restitution order. Certainly Bill C-77 will allow a restitution to be made at the request of a victim rather than just the director of military prosecutions. It will also require the court martial to inquire of the prosecutor, after a finding of guilt and before imposing the sentence, if the victim is seeking restitution.

That's the restitution aspect.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Just to put it in perspective, it doesn't seem that financial restitution is a significant gap to close within the Canadian Forces.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I would say that statistically, you know, these are fairly early days. Only five courts martial have taken place thus far, so it's hard to identify any trends vis-à-vis the restitution.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

On protection orders, how significant an issue is the need to protect members from each other?

Is the protection order mechanism under Bill C-77 something that's new?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

The protection mechanism adds a number of provisions into really a mirroring of the Criminal Code with a number of provisions such as non-production orders, assisting witnesses to testify behind a screen, with an aide. There are mechanisms.

We will certainly undertake to look at what's currently in the act to make sure that I give you a complete answer. But certainly in terms of the bill, the bill does contemplate for a number of protection mechanisms that mirror the Criminal Code, which further legislates and codifies what is currently perhaps in practice in the common law. But to ensure that I'm giving you the proper answer, I would ask that maybe I could get back to you on that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Sure.

I think that's my time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to go to five-minute rounds of questions now.

The first one will go to MP Robillard. The floor is yours.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning, and a special thank you to Lieutenant-General Lamarre for his excellent French translation of his presentation. This is particularly welcome these days.

My first question is this: how does Bill C-77 expand upon the right to information currently held by victims within Canada's military justice system?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

Could you clarify your question, please?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

How does Bill C-77 expand upon the right to information currently held by victims within Canada's military justice system?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

Certainly, sir, the right to information provides victims with general information about the military justice system and the services and programs to which they are entitled. Then, each victim is entitled to updates on the investigation and the place where the court martial will be held.

The right to information will also include the right to obtain information regarding an offender, while they were in, or released from, a service prison or detention barracks. Certainly, the bill calls for not only the general right to information, but some specific rights to provide further information for victims.

I would add as well, in terms of information, that the bill calls for, as you are well aware, sir, a victims liaison officer. The victims liaison officer would be there to assist victims to understand the complexities of the military justice system, for those victims who may be unaware of the particularities of a system that they may not have had any contact with. The victims liaison officer would provide assistance in that regard.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Bill C-77 would add a new section 71.05 to the National Defence Act to provide victims of service offences with the right to have their security considered by the appropriate authorities in the military justice system.

Since the term “appropriate authorities” is not defined in the bill, who do you think will be or should be considered “appropriate authorities”?